HomeMy WebLinkAbout925RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, endorsing the King
Subregional Plan.
WHEREAS, the King Subregional Council of the Puget
Sound Council of Governments adopted the King Subregional
Plan on December 14, 1978, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent is a member of the King
Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments,
and
WHEREAS, the King Subregional Plan Guide for local
land use, transportation, utility planning and intergovernmental
coordination which can minimize growth management conflicts and
benefit the region, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has adopted a Comprehensive
Plan which generally is in conformance with the King Subregional
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Commission reviewed the King
Subregional Plan on January 27, 1981, and recommended to the City
Council that it be endorsed, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DO
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1: The Kent City Council endorses the purpose
and goals and policies contained in the Phased Growth, Transportation,
Public Utilities and Intergovernmental Coordination sections of the
King Subregional Plan as listed in Appendix "A" attached hereto.
Section 2: Activity centers will be identified by the
City Council at a later date.
Section 3: The City of Kent is currently updating each
of its four subarea plans and the preparation of these plans will
consider the goals and objectives of the King Subregional Plan.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council
this 2nd day of March, 1981.
ATTEST:
LERK
P OVED AS TO u
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of
Resolution No. ~;?~ , passed by the City Council of
City of Kent, Washington, the 2nd day of March, 1981.
the
(SEAL)
i
l
l
~ _; " :
'-.\
·· ... '
i\PPENDIX I\
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Kl NG SUBREGIONAL COUNCIL
666 Bellevue Way S.E.
Bellevue Washington 98009
Adopted December 14, 1978
.,\
KING
SUBREGIONAL
P.LAN
PUGET SOUND COUNCJL OF GOVERNMENTS
Kl NG SUBREGIONAL COUNCIL
666 Bellevue Way S.E.
Bellevue Washington 98009
Adopted December 14, 1978
.-. '' ..,
• v
pscog
December, 1978
President: Edward G. Hudson, Councili!lan, City of Tacor.n.a
Vice President: Lorraine Hine_, May_or, City of Des Moine~
Executive Director: Mart Kask
Subrepional Coordinator: Jim Hilliams
The King Subregional Plan and the accorpanyin~ Environmental
Impact Statement were prepared under the authority of the
King Subretdonal Council of the Pupet Sound Council of Governt'lents.
Mayor Gary A. Zimmerman, Bellevue, Chairman
Mayor Isabel K. Hogan, Kent, Vice Chairman
Councilmember Jean Baldwin, Duvall
Hayer James Barton, Hunts Point
~~yor Edgar Bauch, Tukwila
Councilmember George Benson, Seattle
Councilmember Beth Bland, Mercer Island
Councilmember Cary Bozeman, Bellevue
Councilmember Doris Cooper, Kirkland
Mayor John Dawson, Normandy Park
Mayor Charles Delaurenti, Renton
Councilmember Larry Diener, Redmond
Councilmember Nick Dorsey, Pacific
Councilmember Gary Grant, King County
Councilmember Michael Hildt, Seattle
Hayer Lorraine Hine, Des Moines
Mayor Stanley Kersey, Auburn
Councilmember Paul Kraabel, Seattle
Chairman Leo LaClair, Muckleshoot Tribe
Councilmember Mike Lowry, King County
Mayor John Matchett, Algona
Mayor Oscar Miller, North Bend
Mayor Miles Nelson, Clyde Hill
Councilmember Ernest Neuman, Issaquah
Councilmember Patrick Parker, Beaux Arts
Councilmember Richard H. Rainforth,Lake Forest Park
Councilmember Bill Reams, King County
Mayor Charles Royer, Seattle
County Executive John Spellman, King County
Councilmember Bernice Stern, King County
Councilmember Gaye Veenhuizen, Enumclaw
Councilmember Sue Walsh, Bothell
Councilmember Jeanette Williams, Seattle
The King Subregional Plan was prepared under the direct policy
ruidance of the Grol-!th and Development ColJliT'.ittee of the King
Subregional Cotincil.
Mayor Lorraine Hine, Chairman, Des Moines
Councilmember Cary Bozeman, Bellevue
Councilmember Gary Grant, King County
Councilmember Michael Hildt, Seattle
Councilmember Patrick Parker, Beaux Arts
Councilmember Mab Tocher, Bellevue
Councilmember Gaye Veenhuizen, Enumclaw
Karen Rahm, King County (Alt. for County Exec.)
Lynn Kay, Seattle (Alt. for Mayor Royer)
Former members of the Growth & Development
Committee:
Councilmember Paul Kraabel, Seattle
Councilmember Doreen Marchione, Redmond
Councilmember Nancy Rising, Bellevue
Mayor Edgar Bauch, Tukwila
Councilmember Bernice Stern, King County
Councilmember Sue Walsh, Bothell
Irv Berteig, King County (Alt. for County Exec.)
Phil Sherburne, Seattle (Alt. for Mayor Royer)
Ken Bounds, Seattle (Alt. for Mayor Royer)
KING
SUBREGIONAL
PLAN
RECEIVED
KENT PLANNING DEPT.
PUGET SOUND COlJNCIL OF GOVERl"M:NTS
216 FIRST AVENt~ SOUT:~
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810~
KING StnREGION~~ CO~~CIL
666 BELLEVUE WAY S.E.
BET.T.~~~. w~SEINGTO~ 98009
Adapced December 14, 1978
Fourth Printing
June, 1980
contents
Page No.
A.DOPTIOt-T RESOLUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -i
Sl.M1ARY .................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
PURPOSE.................................................... j
GOALS...................................................... 7
POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PHASED GRO~ITH ......................................... 11
ACTIVITY CENTERS ...................................... 25
TRANSPORTATICU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
PUBLIC UTILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j l
IN't~RGOVE~NTAL COORDINATION ........................ 61
GLOSSAP.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Puget Sound Cc.,1cil of Governments
A RESOLUTION OF TEE KING STJEREG!ON)..L COu"'NC!I. OF T.dE PUGZT SOu"'ND
COUNCIL OF GOVEENME~ITS AJJOPT7~G r..::z :Z~":1G SubREGIONAL PI..A.l.'T
w11EREA.S I the King Subregional Council has concluded char:
phased, managed gro~h of r:he subregion ~ll conserve en~ron
men~al resources, amenities, energy, and r:~~ monies and more
fully utilize existing investnenr:s; and
w~REAS, the K~g Subregional Council's member jurisdicr:ions
have developed a Subregional Plan for guiding grow~h; and
WHERE.~, the Subregional Plan provides a framework for guidance
of local land use, transportation, utility planning and inter-
governmental coordination which can mini~ze grow~h management
conflicts and benefit the region; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for local general
purpose gqvernm.ent to exercise direct control over decisions
which guide land development in their jurisdictions ~Nithin a
broad context of interjurisdictional agreement about a subregional
~ grow~h and de~Ielopment s r:rategy; and ....,.,...
wnEREA5, the Subregional Plan provides an essential frame-
work of explicit policy to guide the K~~g Subregional Council's
ongoing reviews of subregionally significant environmental impact
sr:atements and applications for federal funding assistance; and
wnERE~~. the King Subregional Council has conducted a sur~ey,
open committee meetings, public workshops and meetings, sought
advice from a randomly selected citizens advisory committee and
the public at large, held a public hearing to f~ther solicit
response to the Subregional Plan; and
w11ERL~. the KL~g Subregional Co~cil has conducted ~~
enviro~~ental ~act assessment as rec~red bv law and considered
the in£o~ation brought before it as a res~l~· o£ ~hac assessmenc;
and
wF~RE.~, che Subregional Pl~~ is co~sistent ~~en Goals and
Pol:.cies for ?.es:i::nal Develcoment, adoDr:eci ir: ?ebr..12.=·y l9ii, and
can qualizy as the ~ing Subregional Co~cil's component of che
Regional Develcomer:.c Plan;
NOW T.~REFORE BE IT ~~OLv~D, ~hat th7 King Subregional
Council ado~ts the ~ng ~uoreg~onal ?lan ~~ i:s en:i=ety;
FU"Yr.dER, chat t.=:.e K.i:1g Subr:gion.a.l Pla.n ~.;ill become che
oasis for conduc~ing planning, coorcinacion and project rev~ew
-=~~ct.: ons o~ r-;..,~ Ki .... o::r Suo.,..::::.cw..:: ""r::a~ rol..::'lc.; i · ---· -• -----. --= --:-'-' ... -'-' ---)
£uRTEE~, :hat :he King Subregional ?lan -~ll serve as the
King Subregional. element: L~ the ~egional Develo~ment: Plan;
FURTHER, that the KL.~g Subregional Plan be promoted for use
b~ general anci s-pecial ?U-"70S e juris dictions i:: the developmer .. t
or their land use policies;
FtTRr?~R. that the Subregional Plan shall be used as the
primary policy guide for preparing forecasts of population and
e~loyment for use in regional and subregional planning; and that
the use of such Subregional Plan based forecasts ~y local
government and special districts is encouraged; ·
FURTHER, that as s~ecific local co~rehensive pl~,s are
approved or amended, the King Subregional Plan be re~ewed for
possible conflicts and amended, if necessary, by the Subregional
Council;
FURTHER, that the King Subregional Cotincil submits the goals
and policies of the King Subregional ?lan to each local government
for adoption.
December 14, 1978 ·~tl
~~y~r Ga--yu~· z~e~n (3ellevue) , Cha~rman /
King Subr gional Council
~~ ~~NDED by action of the King Subregi:nal Council on
January 11, 1979.
Janua=7 ll, 1979
•
•
SUMMARY
KlNG SUBREGIONAL PLAN
Back:n:ound
The Subregional Plan came about in ~~e afte~ath of the 1975-76
reorganization of the Puget Sound Council of Governments.
Events at that cime gave the Council of Governments the courage
to recognize ~~o underlying themes: few issues were tiuly
ftregional" in nature and the greacest: scrength of the C01.mcil of
Governments lay in che ability of its member governments to work
and reason togecher in a common for~.
At the time the reorganization was under~ay, a Committee of the
Executive Board called the Regional Development Plan Task Force
was concluding work on a four-county policy g1Jide to develop-
ment of the region. The task force concluded, in accordance with
the basic tenets of the reorganization, that more detailed work
could be most appropriately done at the county or subregional
level. rne Subregional Council was charged with doing a growth
management plan.
Ori~in of the Subregional Plan
The King Subregional Council set out to create a detailed policy
guide on fthow 11 growth should occ"..lr i.:J. King County. At one
point, the Subregional Council, encouraged by King County,en-
tertained the idea of pursuing a county-wide land use plan
emphasizing the timing and location of new development. This
concept was rejected but one of the initial steps i:J. that effort -
The Land CaoacitY Study: Vacant Land Inventory -became a major
building block ror subsequent: Subregional Council and King County
growth management effort:s.
The Subregional Council's planning er=ort focused on the sb~red
responsibility of all governments in the county to plan for an
appropriate distribution of g=owth. It was recognized that a
sharing of growth management r~sponsibility must be based upon ~
clear statement of the orincinles and orocedures for coooerative decision-~~ing. The S~regional Plan-was designed to f~lfill
t..~at purpose.
'!Eo t: Soots ft
The G~owch_an~ Deyelo~ment_~o~t:tee of th~ Subregiona~ ~ouncil
soea~~e~d-~ --e -lan~,~c o--ar--~e c~~,--eo s--~-oa ~~ -..... ..~.d. c:: ... --· !-'-J..-.J.: -~..J... -· _.:.... <..)~-~:._ -\_d._.__ '..;~
exami~i~g cu=re~t growth management ~ss~es in idenci=iec areas
iii
and seeking ways to capitalize on the oppor~unity or mitigate the
resulting impacts. TI1..e issue areas became known as "hot spots."
The hot spots included ut~li~ extensions typified by the Union t
Hill sewer connection and ~ater District 108 service eXDansion,
development on the Sammamish Plateau, flood prevention and develop-
illent in the Green River Valley, the rt-~-eyerh.auser Quad=an: Cor?oration
development of west C~us in ?ederal way, tte urbanization of the
Juanita area and regional shopping centers sue~ as Evergreen Sas:
and the Bo~~ell Regional Center.
Plan Pur"'ose
The fundamental purpose of :~e Plan is to ?rovide a county-wide
guide to growth management decisions which will be adopted and con-
sistently implemented by local jurisdictions. The Subregional
Plan will also serve as a guide for regional actions or recommenda-
tions on A-95 reviews, population forecasts and for discussions on
specific issues.
Plan Goals
The Plan recognizes the desirability of guiding th.e location and
sequence of growth rather than the absolute amount of growth. TI~e
PLan promotes a sequence of development that ,..v:i.ll utilize previously
committed land areas and existing facility systems before expanding'
into new areas. It promotes a regional pattern of development
easily served by transit with the concentration of the most intensive
activities in designated centers. The Plan seeks to promote
L~terjurisdictional cooperation and retention of direct control
by local government over decisions which guide land development.
Policies and Policv Imnlementation Guidelines
The backbone of the Subregional Plan is the policies. The policies
focus on five major subject areas: phased growth, activity
centers, transportation, public utilities and intergovernmental
coordination. Each set of policies is supported by suggested
implementation guidelines. The ~~idelines amplify the meaning and
intent of the policies and aid in their inter?re:ation.
Tb_e policy implementation guidelines suggest :o local gove=nmen:s,
special pu=7ose dis:=icts and :he Subregional Council specific
activities that can be undertaken or considerations that can
be app~ied :o achieve :~e objectives a= the oolicies.
iv
Phased Growth ?olicies
The phased growth policies embody t~e ori~ciples for t~e location
and timing or sequence of developmenc oucside of
activity centers. The basic thesis is that land use changes
should be phased in a t~ely man~er C8ns~cering a w~ce ~ange of
factors in accommodating the predicted growth in ~~e subregion.
These factors i~clude supply and demand =or land, costs, amenities,
natural hazards, environmentall7 sensi~iv-e areas, and the
availability and capacity of existing ?Ublic facilities.
The objectives are to assure that an adequate su?ply of land is
available for development, to more fully utilize existing invest-
ments in public services and to promote local decisions and agree-
ments on where, when and the density at which growth should occur.
The central policy in this section is to:
•Encourage new growth to locate in existing centers,
skipped-over land or in locally designated lands on the
suburban fringe which have been serJiced and committed
to development.
The policies seek to balance development timing, size, location
and density with the ability to economically provide oub lie
services. They recognize the need to acc~ulate and
monitor data to make-sure that development, land and
t~' housing costs are economically compeci:ive. Local governments
~ are encouraged to identify and rese~ve lands deemed
unsuitable for develooment.
u
The policy im?lementation guidelines supporting the phased growth
policies emphasize local programs or incentives to monitor and
develop vacant land which already has existing utility services,
the use of oo~ulation and emnlovment forecasts and t~e orovision
of land supply data. Other implementati::m guideli:1es support
preservation of agricultural land and housing opport 1~ities
for low and moderate income persons.
ActivitY Centers Policies
Activity centez:-s are defined as "focal poin-cs of Cl.verse and
incense activity which may include a concentration of jobs, shoppin~,
offices, services and housing with a ~ighly developed trans-
-.o.,.. .... -tion -·-.s-::.m ser~.,..;,..,cr one 0 ..... ..,C ..... "' C"'n-"'~-" ~e -='~~n seat-s ~ •'-.C:. -.:;,} ~_._ v-!..-o • ~ ...u. .~.,._ -· ~_ __ .,:,. ..... ... .~. ._ ---:..
to conserve energy, land and neighbcr~ood cohesion by providing
a strong alterna:ive co commez:-cial ciecent::-alizat:ior.. and to
provide an areawide concept =or location and develoomen~ of
high density ac~iv~:ies.
v
The basic c~:usc oz t~e activity center oolicies is to:
ePromote designation of activity centers of different
scales as concentrations of commercial, employment and
transit activity.
The policies and policy imDlemencacion ~uidelines s~~gest
. ~~d c-~~Q~~~ for ~es~gna~~on o--~ acr_,_·v,_·---y ~Q_nter~. orocea.ures ~· .... -._ __ ~-..... ..:.._ '-~ - -
!hey encourage consideration of public e:oenciitures and local l~"ld
use decisions in light of cheir Lopac: on· designated activity
centers. Housing near activitY centers is identified as an
issue of local discretion. It. is su~gested tha-t activ·ity centers
receive priority transit and pedestrian i!!lprovements.
Transportation Policies
The transportation policies are keyed to the Puget Sound Council
of Governments' role as w~e designated Metropolitan Planning
Organization for transportation programs. The transportation
policies reflect the scarcity of transportation funds and the
increasing capital and operating costs associated with trans-
portation facilities. They build on and support the regional
policies defined in the Transportation System Plan. The policies
are confined to addressing the type, location and priority of
transportation improvements directly associated with the l~~d
use decisions recommended in and influenced by the subregional
plan under the premise that transportation programs should support
land use decisions. The aooroach is to use transport:ation
facilities and services co suppor: publicly adooted land use
policies.
The central policy of the transportation section is to:
•Recommend a priority order for project development of
transportation facilities and services as follows --(1)
maintenance of the structural and operational integrity of
existing facilities and se::-Jices; (2) cost effective
improvements supportive of designated activity centers;
(3) low caoital solutions to :ransoor:ation orob~ems co
;....e..,ro,.-,,-~i.:?O ev~--;.,..,,_ -=-c-~--~es·· (/,) ~-.,-,~-~1 ~n-.oT"'s.;~.,.e ~ -~,..__ -.:..------.".l.-.::'1 1......1...1.. ... 0 J..~ ..__..:..,. ~· J \.-I._ d.:-' ..... ,_ __ ..!...~ !_--· ... \1
improvements compatible with activity cente= and phased
g=owth objectives which inc=ease :he capaci~v of existing
facilities; (5) new faci~ities and services in areas suitable
-Fo~ ;..,c .... o:::~s-ri _.ev.ol,-,,...,men-. ....:-._,;T"l -=--c._, ~~ ... =oo,.._..,. -~~-.;..,o ':""1-:-ef=e.,.=nco - --·· ---t::::-~ __ ......,:-' ~ t.. W~_ ... _._ .. ~ -a. "'"-"--t--o -;' o~J•••:::!I t-J-----. -
to improv~en=s benefi~ing =ransit and high occ~pancy vehicles.
The ?Olicy ~~l~en~a~ion guicelines suggest the Subregional
Coun,....;l .... i-o.,.:::n.:sl7 :::1"'-,!7 ~._,Q c,..~-o-....-f:::~ .::,...,.,. n ... ~~.;z~no _._,e ":"o~e--":ll • I ---.. 0 - -... -:-'':'-J ------------....,t--------0 \..-· .. --_...__ j.~.-1 ~~--b.=n :::v~-o,.,., ;:..,c.· o-~_:..,e..,. .::.orio--' .::.,_,..;_ .. __ ...,. ...... -· ...,.4, ___ ....._. ---.-.J. -_____ ,:::. ___ ....... .::J.
)
~
'C.,'
Public Ut:ilit·7 Poli~~ ?-
The public utility policies evolved f=crm a long series of discussions
by elected officials on the correlacions be~Neen sewer and water
services and urbanization. ~Le basic approach ~as been to encourage
mutually supportive land use and public services decisions in the.
context of a conscious growt~ managemen~ s~racegy adhered t:o by
all serrice providers.
The basic objectives of this section are to encourage full
utilization of a.~isting water and seTNer services, to conser-ve
land resources. co economize an capical expendicures, and co improve
the relationship becween utilicy and land use plar~ing.
The major purpose of the key pub 1 ic utili cy policies is to:
•Guide the extension of new water and sewer service,consistenc
with the activity centers and phased grmv-th policies, to locations
other services are available or development exists.
The other policies promote interjurisdictional utility service
planning decisions where appropriate. r.~e policy implementation
guidelines encourage monitoring and utilization a£ information on
existing and committed local service areas to maintain and
accommodate growth pressures. The Subregional Co~~cil is encouraged
t:o use A-95 and en~ronmental imnact statement reviews to assess
1.!tility service i:npacts on growth. The guideli:tes suggest a
priority checklist for evaluating extension of public or private
sewer or water service. Accelerated permit processes, density
bonuses and land assembly assistance are suggested as incentives.
Intergovernmental Coordination Policies
Tne prevalent intergovernmental gra~h management issues include
common efforts to distribute and accommodate growth, significant
dev·elopment decisions affecting more than one jurisdi.ctian, and
conflicting or co~eting relationships and responsibilities among
different levels of gove=::me!".t.
The intergovernmental coordination section of the olan promotes
mechanisms which seek to avoid or minimize land use or development
problems which occur among gove=:uner..ts and c.ffecc more than one
jurisdiction.
Tne major policy in the intergove~er..ca: coordi.nation section
attempts to:
• Esta'o-_1 _;sr,_ a ..,.,e_:::T"~;::: ~-F ;':""~-ol~-..;-.c al1 -.;::--="' ...... "',..; iu..,..~ -c.·~ c~--i '""ns ;~ -.. 1.,.1..1. ---....., __ ...... .J '-·-~ --c::, ____ ~._ __ .... --~-----··
.. ;...e re""f:~~eT-c; -.:___,~;~c--c ':::,...c.' 1 'Se ,..:er.:,.....:c"r!-~-~.:t""r-, ....,ave l..l.l. .,.:.., N .;.. ;:::._0 .;.. __ .._ <:::..1.. "--•• _ I.:. __ ;::;,_ J.o;:) I'H.o..J..-·-•J.
impacts crossing jurisdictional ]oundaries.
vii
0 ther policies ass er-: :he autonomy o·f local ~over:unen t in making
land use decisions and encoura~e special ~urpose district aec~s~or.s
which im~act land use to be coordinated with t~e a~nropriat:e
~eneral purpose ~0'\Ter!lments. The '? lan alSO encourages. t~e
utilization of the Subre?ional Council as a for~~ for discussion
of specific ~rowt:h manaf.ement issues.
The policy ~plemen~ation guidelines which support: the inter-
governmental coorcii~ation policies encoura~e the establishment
of "joint spheres of ir..£luence, '' :..~e moni :orin~ of federal and
state rules and regulations, and s-oecial ~u=~ose dist=ict
participation in the Subre?ional Council.· ·
Amendment and Re~rision
The Subregional Plan can be amended or revised by action of the
Subre~ional Council at the request of any member or committee.
There is an automatic review of the Plan u-oon com~let:ion of a
local com-orehensive, communitv, or utilit:y plan. " .. -
j I •
C"'t-. f ' -
INTRODUCTION
Pu_~ose of the Plan
The King Subregional Plan responds to an apprehension that
grow~h and development events of t~e lace 1970's are out-
running public understanding of their consequences. Existing
regional, county and municipal plans do not consistently ad-
dress the pat~ern of development that is taking shape.
The Subregional Plan provides a framework for local and area-
wide decisions. It also provides a framework for further
investigation, debate, identification of issues and policy
evolution. It became abundantly clear in the subregional
planning effort that the web of development decisions and
explicit and implicit public policy influences is extremely
complex.
The Subregional Council's planning effort focused on the
shared responsibility of all governments in the county to
plan for a locally appropriate distribution of growth as de-
termined by application of the policies. The key to that
shared responsibility is cooperation, particularly in regard
to major issues or problems and growth generating or directing
forces. Forecast population and employment, for example, is
allocated on the basis of local government agreements about
the general timing and location of growth.
The Subregional Pl~i is viewed as a living document. Ic
must grow and change with the events and decisions which shape
growth in the area. It should reflect, through the amendment
process, growth management decisions made by local g~ve~~ments
and policies and intergovernmental decisions forged ~n the
Subregional Council.
The King Subregional Plan focuses on physical planning issues
rather than social or economic ones, although all issues are
recognized as being interdependen~. Social and economic con-
cerns, such as the availability of housing and employment
oupor:unities, are inherent to grow::~ :::tanagement ?Ol.icies in
::he plan. Housing opportunity ar:d land cost effects of the
olan are to be carefullv monitored in crde= to change course
if unfavoracle conditio;s develop.
Relationshio With Other ?lans
Local co~rehensive plans typically afford little recognition
of the extra-jurisdictional i~accs of community decisions.
In view of the Washing-con State s~~reme Court decision in
<:::: ., V 1:' v Bot he 1 1 0'.,.-ow.,..h n-~""na O'<=>'"'e,..,--'no" l ,..; ; n c 1 , de ,..,1'"0 c or-1-~oo.o~ •• ~. ...... • • • ---' o-,_...., ~ :::::-~ .... _ ,::,L ~-~ ••· --':'---
ures to ::ni. tigate :he adverse inroac cs of a communi :y' s de cis :.ens
on adjacent jurisdictions.
The King Subregional Plan summarizes, coordinaces and suggests
direction for decisions made by local gove~ents affect~ng the
physical development of the King County area. It u1:ilized the
Puget Sound Council of Governments' Goals and Policies fer
Re?ional Develooment as a starting po~nt =or consiaeration of
suoregional issues. It relies on that document to address
issues on which the Subregional Plan remains silent. The Sub-
regional Plan is a tool for helping local governments to
implement portions of the 1977 Goals and Policies for Regional
Develo~ment, and a vehicle for proposing amendments to the
~9 Regional Develo~ment Plan. It is intended to foster
enlightened decisions by local gover::1ment·, insofar as regional
data, interju=isdictional discussion, and agreements about
subregional growth can influence local grow1:h management deci-
sions. The Subregional Plan also provides a procedural
framework and policy guide for arriving at grow1:h influencing
decisions in areas that are of mutual concern to two or more
juris dictions.
Local comprehensive plans in King County, while showing differ-
ences of style and priorities, reflect many cowmon concerns.
The plans express apprehension that too much land is zoned for
commercial and industrial use, too little land is reserved for
public recreation, that older business centers and residential
neighborhoods are showing signs of decay and that facilities
and serv·ices in newly aTh~exed areas are not up to standard or
will olace an excessive fiscal burden on alreadv develo~ed areas.
The Subregional Plan attempts to search out the .. kinds of area-
wide, coooerative actions that can comolement local efforts at
solving these kinds of familiar preble~. For example, expend-
i·tures of transportation funds are encouraged if they offe= the
possibility of reinforcing existing business centers, which in
turn reduces some of the incentive for businesses to seek dis-
persed locations which ~y be incompatible wit~ adjacent land
uses.
The Subregio~al Plan also proposes a mechanism for the consid-
eration of differences between local coroDrehensive plans. r.~e
policies co~~~~ned in t~e Plan pro~ide 7. gu~de fo= eval~ating
loc::=l pl-.... a.,--.:=.1'".:=.,...,1"'.:=.s ,_ ove--l::=...,o-,...,g ~·"'n.,....,...,,.,. --.:::.:::=--,.,a s-,,--os-- --~-· -·~---··----~· • -!-" ... ~---r--~ • .~,.~..:..· .. o .:::.---~ ~... \,.j,.oo-~..-
a value basis =or resolv~ng di££e=ences. 7he joint spheres o£
influence conceot ~rooosed in :~e interzovernwe~~al coo=di~a~ion
secr~on 0; -~e s·u~~eO'~o ..... -1 ~~:::=.,..., ~s ::l s~~iric::=...,r --e.,., -~w--~ ---t_ • .~. ._._ .;::~-.~..:.c::.~ ----· - --s.:.·-----·-::::.~._ =-' ,_-...~ c::..---
resolving plan...iing a::d development ci££e=ences ':Je:-..;een si::uilarly
2
I I I
af£ectad jurisdic~~ns. The Plan prov~aes ~~eans for acknowl-
edging and racording ~jar local commi:mencs for futura
develoDments t~at have interjurisc!ictional ~mnac:s; aarticularly
the local designation of accivity centers. · '
~ Tne King Subregional Plan becomes one ?art of :he co~osi:e
regional guide to development i~ the cencral ?ugec Sound region:
The Regional Develonment Plan. Other ele~en:s of The Ragional
Development ?lan include the Goals and Policies for Rezionai
Develonment and :he subregional ? la..-rJ.s =or ~i csan, ?ierce and
Snohomish counties. ·
How To Use The Plan
T• s. . 1 "01 . • • ne uoreg~ona ___ an ~s ~ncenaea to be used by the Subregional
Council and by local governments.
The Subregional Council uses the Plan as a guide for its growth·
management, development, land use and transportation related
deliberations. The Plan does not nurnort to answer all questions
nor is it intended to be comnrehensive. It is intended to oro-
vide a state of the art look· at the comnlex set of interrelation-
ships that guide development. Tne Plan.reflects the collective
judgment of the Subregional Council in the establishment of a
policy basis for Subregional Council actions, deliberation,
and further planning including relaced accivicies such as
comparative population and employment allocations. The Plan
is not static; it is subjecc to continuing evolution, examina-
tion and refinements.
The Subregional Council uses and refers to the Plan in its
entirety; purposes, goals, policies and policy imnlementation
guideli:-.. es .
Local governments are expected to work w~tn~n che context of
the Subregional Plan when developing and reviewing their Owu
0 1 -ns .,.,..,d O'.,....O ... ·"'t·..., managcme.,..,t a.'cc;-.;c,,..,s s--e,....;.::.;,...ail·r r\.,o-e r-.;'"'!.., ... .:::. c;1.4., o-w •J. ... -....... -.._.:;..._ 1.-' ':J ._ ____ --~ -.~r. .. .::; ~-"-••
interjurisdictional impaccs. It is expected that proposals
and ideas will be tested against the policies of the Subregional
Plan to achieve a regionally consistent approach to major growth
shaping decisions. To this end, loca~ gove:-::I!lents are encouraged
to adopt the policies of the Subregio~al ?lan ~y accion of each
l ccr-isl-;--ive boa.·~, ·r':1.e oo 1 icy ;...,,...,1omen---~o .... :··n.;c.'.::.1i-.es -r"" -o• c:.~......., • . J. .... ~--~ -.-.J.:-r--.:.._ ..... ~_a_..:.... \...:. =::--___ ..... d. ~
viewed as providing a level of specificity :hat is not univer-
-a,l"· -ol"''·l.;ca'o1e -o a11 c.; ... ;"'-~.,..,..J _,__ ,..-.11.,.,-..,, 'T".,e..-.::.-=o~.::. -!..,., ;::, -J c..:-.... -1.. --_._ __ ::;, -•-'--··'= '-''-'-'-•'-... -~· --.:.. .... __ , '-··-
adoption o£ the pol~cy i~le~en:ation ~~ideli~es by local gover~-
men;:s is encouraged buc ~oc -.::.qui -.::.a· .. -. ---.
. ~endments and ~=visions
..,..."'-,...... .. . .., "'::) ., . ~ . , u.;,e ~uoregJ.onaJ.. _ l.an :.s c.es~gnec :o
document. As a guide to, anci basis
:::-emai.r: c·..:rrenc and :-e.a.Ci.l~; :-e=]..ec:
Cou:c.cil a::d me!:lber gover:1se-n:s.
3
r·
The authority to amend the Subregional Plan is ves~ed in the
Subregional Council. .~~y member o£ the Sub~egional Council can
propose an ameridmen~ :o che Subregional Plan. The Subregional
Council will refer the ~reposed amendment to the aPProPriate
committee for review and ~ecommendacions prior co Subregional
Council action. :he review will i~cl~de a dece~nacion of
significance under the State Environme~tal Policy Ace .
. ~y commi t::ee of the Subregional Co1..:...."1cil :nay i.::i ~iat e and pro-
pose amendments or revisions to the S~jregional ?lan. Proposed
amendments or rev~sions will be referred to other aPProPriate
committees for consideration and -:.-ecollmlendat::.on. Th~ revie-.:v
will include a State ::nvironmental Policy Act: determination of
significance. Revisions may include major changes to the
adopted Subregional Plan, :he addition of new sections o~ the
consideration of new issues.
Completion of, or a major revision co, a local comprehensive
1~"1d use plan, a community plan or a major transportation or
utility plan will automatically trigger a review of the Sub-
regional Plan. Upon notification of completion or adoption
of such a plan, the appropriate commi:tee(s) will review the
Subregional Plan and propose any amendments or revisions to the
Subregional Plan that it deems appropriate subsequent co a
State Environmencal ?olicy Act determination of significance .
. ~endments and revisions approved by the Subregional Co1..:...."1cil
will be transmitted to the Executive Board for inclusion in
the Regional DeveloPment Plan if t:he changes are regionally
s igniticant.
) ·-
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Subregional ?lan is :a provice an adequate
basis for the consideration of interjurisdi~~ional g~ow~~
management issues. ~~e role of the Subregional Council as an
association and forum o£ local governments is the kay to G~e
following statement of purposes.
Pur~ose Statement
1 The overall purpose of the Subregional Plan is ~o be
a county-wide guide to basic grow~h ~anagement
decisions.
2 The Subregional Plan consists of county-wide growth
policies intended to be adopted and implemen~ed
locally and to serve as a guide to local and inter-
governmental development decisions.
3 The specific pur?oses of the Subregional ?lan are to
provide, at a county-wide scale:
a A uniform policy basis for dealing with major
growth-shaping issues such as transportation,
land use and the provision of public ser~ices
and utilities;
b A policy basis for forecasting the distribution
of future year population and employment;
c A basis far the Subregional Council review and/
or coordination of variol.:S state and federal
assistance programs and environmental impact
statements;
d A policy basis for reference in the :Zing
Subregional Council forums when considering
growth management ?roblems;
e A way co complement and strengc~en t~e ~nter
jurisdictional aspects of local plans.
J
GOALS
T.~e Subregional Plan ?Olicies are based on goals established
early in the planning process. The goals were derived from
an analysis of issues or problems associated w~th past urban
development in the county. The Goals and ?olicies for Regional
Develonment also served as a guide to aevelopmen~ or ~he Subregional
Plan goals. The goals of the Plan should be interpreted in lighr.
of the policies in the subsequent sections of the plan.
Subregional Plan Goals
1 It is in the public interest for local general pur?ase
government to exercise direct control over decisions
which guide land development in their jurisdictions,
within a broad context of interjurisdictional agree-
ment about a subregional growth and development
strategy.
2 It is in the public interest to gu~ae the location
and timing of growth, rather than to control the
~aunt of growth, in order to accommodate anticipated
population and employment increases within the County.
3 It is in the cublic interes~ to achieve a credict-
able pattern of land development ~hich utiiizes
previously committed land areas and existing facility
system investments before committing new areas to
development.
4 It is in the public interest to seek the concentration
of intensive land uses in designaced centers or areas
in order to protect open space and low density land
use.
5 It is in the public in~erest to promote regional and
subarea patterns and levels of development which are
conduciv·e to efficient and productive transit ser,;ice.
6 It is in the public interest to ?rocc:e incerjurisdic-
tional coord~naticn and cooperation i~ public policy
and E:OVer:mJ.ental dec is ions regard.::..ng :=:rowd: and
development. ~
7
8
r-. .s ·,.., th ~1 ~ ~-t-o~ --_~.. ~ ~.. ..e puw __ c ...__ .. ___ es~.-~.-o
en t SUD 0 1 Y 0 -F 1 ~ n ...; -·, .; -::: r. i e -=-,.. .. .. ... - -....... ~ t...:..-1.-----,._.._
insure that a suffici-
:utu=e housi~g and
employment needs is availab~e.
It is in the public interesc to promote
patterns t~at can accommodate a variet~
a..J.d mai~tai:;. options for £-..:.=:..::=e uses or
7
lar;.d 1.:s e
of.lifestyles
1--• : .• e .Lane..
POLICIES
Policies and ?olicv Im:ol~mentation Guidelines
T.~e cornerstone of the Subregional Plan is t~e policies. The
policies focus on five major subject areas: ~hased grow~~.
activity centers, transportation, public utilities and inter-
governmental coordination. The policies which speak directly
to the Subregional Council and its activities are directiYe;
those which address responsibilities or roles of local
governments are a guide to local decision~makers and staff.
Each set of policies is supported by suggested policy implementation
guidelines. The guidelines amplify the meaning and intent of
the policies and aid in their interpretation. The implementation
guidelines suggest to local governments, special purpose districts
and the Subregional Council,speci£ic activities that can be
undertaken or considerations that can be applied to achieve
w~e objectives of the policies.
Local governments in the subregion are encouraged to individually
adopt the Subregional Plan. Local adoption and commit:nent to
the Subregional Pl~n extends only through the policy level.
The policy implementation guidelines are illustrative.
9
('•
''(:...,......,
PHASED GROWTH
Int:roduct:ion
Subregional Plan policies prov~ae an areaw~ae context: for local
decisions ~~at collectively influence che distribu~ion of major
land uses in King County. These policies articulate the principles
for locating housing, employment, and commerce. They also describe
the kinds of areas that should be orotecced from intrusions of
high intensity urban uses. A major emphasis of this portion
of the plan is on the local decisions affecting areawide growth
and land use .
Purnoses
The Subregional Plan's central concern is with the timing and
location of growth in King County. New growth in the past several
decades has on the average utilized increasing amounts of land
per capita. Scattered subdivisions on rural lands, separated
by vacant or sparsely developed areas, have characterized much
of the County's recent development. Approx~ately 60 square
miles of undeveloped land in unincorporated King County would
be committed to urban development by 1990 to accommodate the net
increase in oooulation forecast if this trend continues. The
resulting per capita commitment of land to urbanization would
-.. .. :
~ • ,..
~
be about 30% greater than the present average per capita in the East~
side's suburban cities. Such a low density pactern i~plies that
fucure population would be increasingly dependent on private
automobiles for transportation.
Local governments acting through the King Subregional Council
have generally agreed that an· indis cri::ni.:1ate spra,...;l pa tte:":! o£
growth is unacceptable. The Plan, therefore, encourages new
growth to occur in existing urban and suburban·centers, in skipped-
over lands, and some in selected l~~ds on the suburban/~~ral
edge.
11
Objectives and Problems Addressed ~v ?hased Growth Policies
Phased Growth Objectives
eTa accommodate antici-
pated gro~h in a timely
manner considering a wide
range of factors including
supply and demand for land
and housing, costs, amen-
ities, natural hazards,
environmentally sensitive
areas, availability and
capacity of existL~g pub-
lic facilities, and main-
tenance of future land
use options.
• To utilize existing public
=acilicies such as water
and sewer systems, schools
~~~ --~ns~o--~-;on :~~'1 ~· "'-io '-~ c;;.. !'"' --d. ·--- -.._-- -
ities and syste~ :o :~e
optimal ex-:ent.
Problems Addressed
• There are presently some very
divergent views about the
proper timing of develop-
men: ~n what have tradi-
tionally been thought of as
"urban reserve'' areas. Im-
portant ir.vestment decisions
have been made on the basis
of intentions implied in
King County's 1964 Compre-
hensive Plan and the abun-
dant residential zoning
well beyond existing muni-
cipal areas.
• Septic =~~k systems may be-
come obsolete as more advanced
on-site sewage handling tech-8
niques become available.
Pressure on outlying rural
lands will increase and pre-
sent zoning will be challenged.
• Tnere is an inadequate in-
formation base for moni-
toring and evaluating factors
relevant to growth manage-
ment decisions.
• Local government commit::nents
to future developments are
vague, thus adding to un-
certainties in the market
place, ~oar coordination .of
public and private invest-
ments, and scattered urb~~iza
tion.
• Major pu~~ic capital i~vest
~n sewer ~~d water rne:;.:s
Sys -Q~s -~~oo:---~ans-.. l_-.....0.. 1 ~ "-"'J. -.::t I -
oo~~a:~on facilities ~~d
:. .... ~-Q,.,.,s .::..,a· co,..,..,.,.,u:::..,; -. .,. :_c.; I~-.:::.;.::. __ ......., -~-~ •-•~Y -C. ---
ties ~ave a si~~i!ica~:
l2
Phased Grow~h Objectives
e To locate new residen-
tial and employment
growth in areas or centers
committed to or designated
for development.
Problems Adcressed
influence on ~~e timing ~~d
loca~ion of develonmen~.
Tnere. are demands for new
facilities and se~ices in
developing areas while
s~multaneously, there are
existing capital facilities
which are not being utilized
at capacity. Unnecessary
public costs result.
• There is a very large reserve
of land zoned and potentially
available for low density
suburban development with-
out ~ublic utilities. T.~is
ootential for disoersed,
one-ac::-e lot subdivisions is
likely to become more at-
tractive if site costs rise
sharply in the sewered areas
where development is en-
couraged, and sewer extensions
inca c~eaoer rural lands are
made more" difficult to obtain.
In this atmosphere, disputes
over r..;ha~ is "r<.J.ral" land
will probably become sha=?er.
• Existing development patterns
do not provide 1ong range
aul.·~=~cQ ior ~he ~ra~7 ~sion· 0 ---"-... ._ -'-·· !"'-\1 .J.. -
of ser~ices or certainty
in the ma::-ket place. Sprawl
development is costly to
ser;:..ce and contribu'Ces :c
ciec:~~e i~ exis:ing cencers and
reduces t~e utility c=
existing ?Ublic investments.
13
Phased Grow~h Objec~ives
• To stage growth to
contribute to reasonable
housin~ costs and the
availability of housing
for all se~ents of the
population
?~~bl~ Addressed
• Current develo~ment is not
~osu:-;n~ ;~ ~:,~~iciont1~
- -... t--.L. ~ _..... ~ ~·-- --· -.l
dense clusters of ~ploy-
ment and commerce to justify
hi~h levels of local transit
service (not oriented to the
nrimary met~opolitan center)
or to accommodate an energy
scarce future.
• The rather dispersed automobile
oriented retail and office
patte=ns emer~ing in the
suburbs do not foster invest-
ment in pedestrian amenities
or even safety features,
except within the exclusive
confines of some shopping
centers.
• Housing costs and availability 8
are a function of a myriad of
public and private decisions.
There is little consensus about
how much land there should be
available for development at
any ~iven time to minimize
on-site costs. The role of
the public sector in making
land available is not clearly
s~elled out. Ineouities may
be caused by existin~ regula-
tions and procedu=es. rne
land cost effects of concentrated
growth policies are not well
understood. Growth management
policies of local ·government
are vulnerable to charges that
cons~er costs cf housing are
increased because of ?-rowth
mana£tement.
• The::-e is a recognized. sca::-cit:'
of well located-sites zoned fer
multi-family jousing develop-~
ment, a situatio~ which ~ay . ~ --~ . . aaversely a==ec: ~~e ~ous~ng
opport'.!Tli ties for yo,.mg a:1d
e I ,...: o..,. 1 _.,. ..._on S e ~ 0 1 c.· ~
-----.v .... -... ... -,::, .
Phased Growth Objectives
e To retain a=eas of low
intensity land use for
agriculcural preserva-
tion, protection of en-
vironmentally sensitive
areas and the minimiza-
tion of· the imnact of
natural hazards.
, -.J..J
• Intrusion of urban uses is
continuing co occur in the
Drime soil areas in the oath a£ urbanization. Other im-
oortant lands are threacened
by loss of economic incentives
to continue farm produccion.
• Development pressures are
strong in areas considered
hazardous for such develop-
ment, either to the eventual
occupants or to the environ-
ment, or both. Low lying
flood prone areas are parti-
cularly susceptible to chis
presst.:re.
• There are Dotential conflicts
beCNeen in=ill, contained
growth policies, and the
desirable qualities of open
spaces w~thin ~~d between
cities and suburbs.
POLICY l
PHASED GROWTH POLICIES
' NEW" COMMERCL;U. A..~D OT.dER IN:ENS IVE ACTIVITIES
SHOlJL.D LOCATE IN -::XISTING u~Ai'l' AND ST.JEURBAJ.'T
CENTERS; ~w RESI~ENTI-~ wEiffi~OP~~T OFFERING
A VARIE!Y OF "dOUSING OPPORTT.JNITIES SHOu"LD
LOCATE I~ EXISTING CENTERS, IN SKIPPED-OVER
LANDS ~'TD IN LOCALLY SELECTED ~~~S ON THE
SUBURBA.L'i/RURAL EDGE wniC:-I H...!."v~ BEEN COMMITTED
TO DEilELOPME~~ .
Policy Implementation Guidelines
1.1 New develooment should loca~e i~ areas
with compatible zonin£ and e_"{istin~
services (principally water and sewer) .
1.2
1.3
Local ~overnments should desi~ate areas
within their plannin? ju=iscictions which
are next in line for urban and suburban
development.
Designated africultural lands, environ-
mentally sensitive, and his~orically or
naturally unique areas should be identified
and reserved !rom development, whether
occurrin~ in urban and su~urban centers,
skipped-over parcels or at the suburban/
rural edge.
t
1.4
1 --·"
1.6
Provision of urban services by municipal
government should be made a prerequisite
for suburban tract development. Developments
should look to the appropriate city as the
ultimate service provider.
Differences in city plans or community pl~is
=or the anciciDated or ulti~ate-development
of an area should be idenci£ied. Timing of
develoPment and service standards should be
consistent with the more rigorous requir~ents.
Infill develoo~ent, consis:en~ with this
ooliC"7, should be subs tar::iall7 comoatible
with :he :-r.:e of use or densi:v orevailin£ "' -"' .. .. :..n :ne a::-ea.
l6
t
POLICY 2
~(~------~
HIGdEST PllORI7Y SnOll.D 3E Gl:VEl'T l'O ?ROGR.~'1S .~TD
Ft"'NDING PROPOSALS rNniCd I::!PROVE OR MAINTAI::i 7:-1£
CAP ABILITY OF LOCAL GOVE&.'fr!ENTS TO PROVIDE NECESS~..RY
SERVICES Ai'lD ?t..TBLIC Il"!PR.OilE~NTS IN AREAS rNlilil\E:
GROWTH IS ENCOL~.GED.
Policv Imnlementacion Guidelines
2 .l The relati 1le public cos"ts of proVl_a~ng
facilities anc ser~ices should be care-
fully considered by local governments
when they designace areas with high
priority for development.
2.2 Funding programs for public improvements
and facilities should give highest prior-
ity to projects in existing centers, in
skipped-over lands and in locally selected
lands on the suburban/=ural edge which
have been committed to development.
2.3 The King Subreg~onal Council and member
jurisdictions should work to oaintain che
capability of local governments co plan for
and provide ser~~ces and facilities ac a
level adequate to serve expecced develop-
ment.
~----------------------------------~-?OLICY 3 A S1JP?LY OF 3 U!l.DABLZ UJ.'iD SEOuL.D 3E M...;.I~1TAI::1ED
THAT rs SL7F!CI~'1T ::N A..:U...:._ !o :€::::-: r:-:z swEREGION · s
nOUSDIG -~\ID =:l-!P!..O~~r!' ?.EQC:3.E::!:£::'i'!'S, A.i.\ID :.oc;._:ED
SO AS TO 3E ::;:rcr:::::,1TI.Y ?RO'l!DED ~ .. i!:E ?UELIC
~ACILIT:ZS AND SE:?..V!CES.
Folic~ !mDlemencacion Guidelines
3.1 The relacive public cos~s o£ prov~~~~g
facili~ies and serv~ces should be care£~lly
considered by local gove~encs ~hen t~ey
designate areas wi:h nigh priori~y for
developmenc.
3.2 Local governments should designate enough
buildable land, eligible for ·~ban servi.ces,
to a.ccommocate demands for neT..;r housing.
The supply should provide consumers some
choice in housing sites and allow for the
tLme it ~~~es to acouire and oreoare sites,
obtain permits, etc: Joi~tly-wich local I
governments, the King S~bregional Council
should esti~ate and oonitor :~e areawide
need for developable land .
. ~ . .1 The s-ubregional supply of land eligible
for develooment at anv one ti~e should be
su££icien t-~o ~.ccom:::noda ca ~o-uula :ion
projected for five years beyond that time.
3.4 The 1977 King Count? La!".d Caua.cicy ScJ.dv:
Vacant Land Inventor¥ should be the in£o~a
tion base :or dete~ni~g land available
for develoo~ent in a oar~icular area.
The I~v~ncory. ~h~uld ?7 '.:?C:.ated per~cdically
to rema~~ val~c =or =~~s ~u~ose ana
should oe ~odified ~0 re.::ecc C.ecailed
local dat:a or judgements by lo'cal gover:l-
ments T.Vi t~in. cj.ei= juris G.ic:ior..s abot.:c
concicions :hac wau:d res~ricc act~al
ava..ilab :..li :y o.: •.;ac.a::..: l a.ncs f::: cieve lc?-
:ne:nt.
3 5 L• -c-i -a"""=~-rnent ~~0"1 ,.; ::::~-.:.~~1 ;...,e oe=:J.i: anc • ....., Q.-6 ---~-.-....-~~-._._._. ____ ............ ___ ..
... ::::...,,..: ::::.·-.......... ocQ-s::::.-:._. c.'e<::.: ~a.,..oc' --ow--:.., :: ..... e~s e --v--W ~--~ -~ ---~~~ --6------
::: e:oeci:a aD-o-::-o~ral o.: ::ie..,;elom!:.e::.: :JJ..ans
:~a: are ?ro?osec i= areas a:reacy .
des:..~a:ed as s~:able ==-=-cevelc?we~:.
l.S
..-------tJt.._ _______ ...-;t&l _____ ......
POLICY 4 LOCAL GOVERN}~~TS SnOuLD :DENT~FY L~~DS TO 3E
RESERVED FOR ?1.ITURE DEV"E::..OPME"NT.
?olicv Imnlemencaci.on GuiC.eli.nes
4.1 The reserve a f land. mast suir::ab le for
future conversion to urb~~ ~se should. be
generally icienci£ied so thac annronriate
land use =egulations can be applied.
~.2
4.3
P,..esenr l;:.,..,a' ''Se ~"'C'',1a-ions .;"!"1 -,.."'as -.. --~• - --o......,-~._._ ' -·· <::.--
intended to accommodate future grow~h,
should noc preclude the option of
11 .,• ,; .;··na d ;.,-.: ~.;~· eventua_ y suoa_v_aJ. .. 0 at ens ___ es· "·•on
enough to financially support urban
services and :acilicies.
The timing of new development in an area
or on a given site is a planning pre-
rogative reserved to local gove~.ment.
Criteria should be develoned locallv
to assist in evaluating the cimelin~ss
of proposed developmen~s.
19
POLICY 5 rnE RES?QNSIBILITY ?OR L~LS~NTING G~Ow~~
M&~AGu~~~ POLICI~S ~MP.I~S w:TE LOC~~ GOVS&~
~NT.
5.1
5.2
5.3
~ocal gove~menc :~d use ol~~s should
~o~ider the impac~s o£ concencracing
s~regiorial growc~.
-oc-1 ::l"'"'a.' ~,..,,...or-~ -v --~~s"""o,...---~ o,.., S',Ts-~.-o_ms -d.-~~ ....... ._ __ ,_ ____ I..J..c:o.~. :-' --d.i..-....
shoul~ provide_increase~ in.peopl7 ..
::arry~ng capac:.:y co oa~nca:.:1. :nobl.1~ty
;..,-ichi:1. and ~ecr..;een concentrated u=ban
centers.
G~delines for the retention of a minimum
amount of nondeveloped vacant skipped -
ever land should be set oy local govern-
cent to provide for continuation of the
d . d •• l' -C?en, :.verse an natura~ zee :.ng or
~banized King County. Planned unit
cevelopments, dedication, acquisitions
a.=J.d "fee in lieu" orOC"0 ram.s mav all con-
• J
c::.-:.oute.
2G
..------ft--------(~------....
POLICY 6 LOCAL INTERPRETATION ~~D 2XECDTION OF SUBREGIONAL
PHASED GROwili POLICIES SHOULD BE :--!ONITORED AL\TD
EVALUATED IN THE KTNG Sul3REGIONP.~ COUNCIL ?ORL"'}1.
Policv Imnlemenca~ion Guidelines
6.1 The King Subregional Council should
assist local governments in iden~i£ying
popula~ion and employment forecascs cha~
reflect the vacant land locally available
for develonmenc, and ~hac are indica~ive
of areawide ~eeds as ~ell as local
conditions.
6. 2 Fore cas cs pre duced by the ?uge t So"U-Tld
Council of Governments 1 Activity Allocation
Model will be used as one of a number
of considerations in determining local
growth forecasts and as a tool for ~esting
growth management strategies.
6.3 The King Subregional Council and King
Coun~J should continue to monitor and
publicize the possible ranges of growch
pressures to aid public investment timing
decisions.
6.u Issues and problems relating to growth
management should be brought to the
attention of the Subregional Council for
discuss ion .
6.S Local comprehensive plans, zoning, sub-
division and planned unit ordinances should
be periodically reviewed by the Subregional
Council to evaluate their area,...iide effects
on growth management and housing opportunities.
6.6 The Subregional Plan should be reviewed for
compatibilit7 ·,.;ith local comprehensive,
community or major utility plans upon
completion or aciopcion of such plans.
2l
POLICY 7 A CHOICE OF HOUSING OPPORTt~ITIES SHOu~D 3£
AVAILABLE TO ?EOPLE OF ALL INCOME LZVZ~S.
Policv Imnlemencacion Guideli~es
7 1 Loc -1 oove.......,.,..,.,e.,...,.,..-_._,O''ic' -::.,,...;::.r---=-"'·""~a.e , <::.-~ "'~ ... ....,.. .... ._.::. .::>•~ .__ ~-v.o..-N <:.•-C.vv-
SOCial e£fec~3 c£ ~~c ODDor~uni:ies af-
forded by the housing densicy anticipa~ed
in their land use plans and regulations.
7.2 Efforts should be ~de by laca: gaverr~ents
to define t~eir commicmencs co housing
ODDOrtunicies for low.and moderace-i~come families and individuals.
7.3 Local zoning provi3ions for single-family
and multi-family housing should be con-
sidered when assessing the adequacy of
commitments to housing opportunity;
if the financial realities of low and
moderate-income housing indicace a need
to create more small single-family or
multi-family sites, adjustments to zoning
regulations should be considered by the
local government.
7.4 The review of ?ragrams ~~d allocation of
funds should include incentives for com-
munities making a clear effort to provide
a reaso.nable amount of housing opportunity
for people needing law and moderate-income
rental units.
7.5 The Subregional Council should consider
areawide ~easures far increasing housing
ODDortunities, oarticularly where such
"f"ast tracking". measures mav be associaceci
with the subregional planning and project
review functions of the Council.
t
~--------~~t--------------~(~t------------~ POLICY 8 LOCAL ~1D USE PUU1S SHOULD RECOG~IZE
.:1J.\ID PROTECT AREAS '..lHE?.E OPE::r SPAC:E OR EXTRE.'!El..Y
LOW TNT:&.'TSITY USC:S ~£ OF LOCAL OR SUBREGIONAL
B E.l.'1EF IT .
Policy Imnlementaticn Guidelines
8.1 Tax incentives, development rights purchase,
open space easements and ot~er ~easures
should be applied to reinforce agricul-
tural activity where it is still a pro-
ductive, beneficial and f~nancially
feasible land use.
8.2 Encourage land use regulations and economic
development programs that foster recen-·
tion or creation of agricultural support
activities, sue~ as food processing or
transportation facilities.
8. 3 Recognize that ·w-ithholding of urban services
and development from designated agricul-
tural areas underscores the need for more
efficient development in urbanized areas.
8.4 Development should be prevented or curtailed
in environmentally hazardous areas.
8.5 Nonscructural solutions to environmental
hazards should be encouraged.
8.6 Urbanization of designated flood prone
areas should be discouraged.
8.7 ~ncentives should be provided to those
jurisdictions t~at make progress toward
setting aside lands for pu-~oses of
environmental resource protecl.:ion or
prevention of hazards to human settlement.
8. 8 Procedu=al guidelines established in the
State Environmental Policy Ace should be
rigorously followed in e.;aluati:;.,g develop-
ment proposals that affect enviror~entally
hazardous a::-eas.
23
ACTIVITY CENTERS
Int:roduction
Activity centers are defined as foca~ ~o~~t:s of diverse and
intensive activi~f which may include a· concentration of JObs,
shopping, offices, business, recreation and service functions
usually with a highly developed transpor~at:ion ne~~ork serving
and connect:ing one or more centers.
Key aspects of this definition are i.t:s emp(1.asis on diversity
and compactness of acti'rities.
Punose
The activity centers element of the King Subregional Plan is
a cornerstone of ~~e phased grow~h concept. It complements
the Plan's theme of controlling sprawl development. TI~e
activity center strategy offers positive incentives to
attrac~ and maintain intensive land uses in selected locations.
It presents an opportunity to relate high densi:y housing
to those uses if local juris dictions see advantages in doing so.
Objectives and Problems Addressed by :~e Activi=y Center Aonroac~
The objectives of the activity ::encer pol.i.::ies and the orobl.e!!ls
w~ich they add=ess are summarized below.
Ac~ivity Center Objectives
e To conserve land and pro-
mote neighborhood cohesion
by providing a strong
alternative to commercial
decentralization.
e To encourage revitaliza-
tion and enhancemenc of
existing urban and sub-
urban centers.
26
:l . • ' . . , _ -:-oo ..Lems :-... acres sec.
• Joos and shopping
locacions are dis~ersed in
King County. Regardless of
ouolic nolicv advocating 11 Urbar..
centered" de;,elopment, local
government zoning ordinances
and an automobile dominated
t:ransport:acion system have
fostered ouclying shopping
centers and low density office
developmenc. Adjacent
neighborhoods have been threatened
by commercial developments
and arterial screet efficiency
suffers from the multiple
accesses to dispersed businesses.
• The vit~licy of suburban centers
is threatened. Plans to
revitalize suburban cencral
business districts are at a
disadvantage. 7he excess of
commercial zoning over land
actually needed for that pur-
pose and the profits that can
be reaned from a commercial
rezone-divert private capital
aw~y ~rom ~e£urbishing .
ex ~s~-~a ~,--~ ~en-~T-es~ec· -l1y -1.....1..~ ... ~ "--1-/ .._ .. ~---~ ' :' -~ -
in the older suburban cities.
Large outlying sites in single
ownerships, easily accessible
by automobile, are more at-
craccive for develooment than
the tvnical obsolescer..t sub-..
~ban dowutow~. Traffic . . . .. ~
congesc~on ~n t~e o~aer centers,
larzelv ~~alleviated by transit,
renders thes ~regressively
less :'.lnc:.iona.:..
-'Q:
('·
Activity Cent:er Objeccives
• To st:rive for a balance
becween che locat:ion of
jobs, shopping concent:ra-
tions and residences, in
order to relieve pressure
on existing t:ranspor~a
tion facilit:ies and mini-
mize the need for new
ones.
• To encourage local govern-
ment:s co concentrate
comnatible land uses at
densities high enough to
justify capital i~vesc
mencs in pedestrian and . . . trans~c anen~c~es.
I~ r
P=oblems Addressed
• Av~r~g~ distances be~~een residenc;
ana JOD locations are increasi~g.
The 1978 Pugec Sound Council
o£ Gove~encs' forecasts
predict: chat a cont:inuation or
oresent trends will resulc ·. . -as ,-00 ~n an ~ncrease or J ,o
jobs in King County (study area)
be~Neen 1980 and 1990.
Seattle's share of the growch
w~ll account for 33,600 of
those jobs. Comparable £ig-u..=e·s
for anticipated population
growch show a countywide in-
crease of 83,500 households
(217,000 individuals). Of
these, 11,800 households are
expected cc reside in Seattle
ar.d 71,700 in the balance
of the County. These figures,
indicace a substantial
increase in demand for
crcss-l~~e and north-south
commuting. With the excep-
tion of Eastside cities, jobs
locati~g outside of Seac:le
will probably be too a~s
persed to offer many people a
chance to minimize distance
be~Neen home and job, or to
have good transit connections
be~Nee:r;. chem.
• Existi~g suburban centers are
dense enough. Newer suburban
cities are soread out to
27
-..L'~aT--=-o"' _;, .... c...,o'oi~o -c~oss ~ -N ~---~~~ ~ ---~ ~-
~~~.parkin~ ~o ~ndividual
or=~ces anc ous~nesses.
Out '-i~o -~ooo~no ~"'~-or-J.j -•·o ~ '-• ..... •.L·o '--•· t...--~
located and sized chiefly
~onve~ience of people ~n
automcbiies.
are
fo=
not
Activity Center Objectives
• To conserve energy by
consolidating travel
descinations.
e To provide an areaw~ae
concept for the distri-
bution of high density
activities that will helo
local government to ·
develop policies af-
fecting those activ~ities
in their jurisdiction.
P=oblems Addressed
• Outside the Seat~le cenc=al
business district and a few
unique concentrations of
acti~rity such as the Univer-
sity District, the tendency
has been to separate
retail and office locations
and to seoarate both of these
from residential uses, thus
increasing fuel consumption.
• Local government efforts to
restrain expansion of poorly
located commercial zones
often encounter strong
opposition. There is a lack
of credible information about
why some kinds of locations
better serve the broad oublic
interest than others. City
councils need a regionally
consistent plan that pro-
motes enough commerical area
to foster competition and the
user convenience, but also
distributes the space so that
public investments in access
and transit service can be
efficiently made.
28
t
?OLICY l
~t .·~
\ ~.
ACT1V1TY CENTER POLJC I ES
CONCE~ITRATIONS OF JOBS, SEOPPI~G. GOVE~~~~.
BUSINESS, SERVICE-~~ CO~RCI.~ ACTIVITIES
SHOULD LOCATE IN DESIG~~ATED ACTIVITY CE::.-ITERS.
Policy Imnlemencatian Guideli~es
1.1 The Subregional Council and local governments
should develop plans and programs supparti ve
of the activity centers concept, consistent
with the appropriate policies.
1.2 A diversity of functions should be recognized
among different t~ypes of activity centers as
described below. (The definitions are li~iced
in scope to include only the activity center
function rather than describing overall
characteristics of a city or area. T~us a
particular acti~rity center may be designated
to reflect a sizable concentration of jobs,
services, cultural and related activities
while the residential character is of a
lower suburban densitv. The Subrezianal Plan
explicitly states t~at hausin~ densities
adjacent to activity centers are a matter
of local discretion.)
Primarv Metro~alitan Center: the lar~est,
most aaminant or tne centers, with t~e most
specialized activities that serve a ~ecropolitan
market area.
Secondarv ~etro~alita~ Center: hi~hlv
accessible centers or employment and commerce
servin?-a trade area of 150,000 oeo~le or more.
Suitable.location for offices thac are not
heavily dependent on specialized business
services found i~ the orimarv metrooolitan
center; su£ficientl7 ccm-oact' and diversified
to consolidate ~a~y-rcu:ine tri~ ou~ases--co
j?bs,. ~aver!"..ment ~ervices, comparison. r7t~il
snopplng, entertal~~ent, cultural act~v~Cles,
etc. These seconda::-r centers are nat necessaril?
e ~ ecr cr1 -0 ac ~,...,.,.,.,..,C c:.' ·--.::. C,-.,n~le~ ~ on C 0 -:... OTJTJ.:-c-•
..... :-' ---'---'UJ.UJ. <=-'--... . ·---·.1. -~--.. -··~' wh~ch mav be ~~c~~.::.~ .:-.~. ~ma_,,_e-_ cnncencratians -J --._ ___ --..--
near residencia: a=eas.
?0 --~
Urban Distric~: serving a ~ixture of
specialized re~ional =~nctions drawing
people from the whole re~ion, and ?eneral
convenience or en:ertaincent functions of
popula~ion livin~ in hi~h density dwellings
adjacent to t~e cen~ers. Intra-city and
regional transoor:acion access bv oublic
transit should be very strong :o'prese~ve
pedestrian linka2"es and ::.ake advantage of
transit user concen::raticns.
Suburban Center: t~e business districts
or suburban areas w~ic~ se~ve a localized
market; the size of these cence~s ~s
somewhat limited bY the fact that many
oeoole in the trade area work and shop
in metropolitan centers.
Indeoendent Town Center: self-sufficient
traae ana service centers; size will vary
with trade area population and distance
from other activity centers; independent
town centers typically feature a fairly
wide range of ~oods and se=vices because
of distance to other ~etrooolitan centers.
These independent centers could be nuclei
for future "new tow-ns" or retain their
present character, dependin? upon local ~
planning objectives.
1.3 Activity centers should be ~eographically
specific areas within a jurisdiction, which
currently have or are expected to have, the
characteristics described in Policv Irrrolamenta-
tion Guideline 1.2 and in Table 1: Desirnated
activity centers should be sufficiently related
to reco?nized ~rowth forecasts that they can be
exoected to meet the requisite size and employ-
ment density criteria within 20 to 30 years of
the desi~nation date and be supported by
local commitment to initiate land use
re~ulations, development incentives and other
measures to assist in meeting the criteria.
30
t
~-----------·-~------------~~~--------~ POLICY 2 THE SUBREGIONAL COUNCIL SF_.l_LL .-li!OPT ?REL:D!I:::J..::....RY
ACTIVITY CENTER DESIGNATIONS ?~OM A ~GIONAL
PERSPECTIVE AS A GUIDE TO LOC)...L GOVER.!.'1MENT SC:L?
DESIGNATION OF AC':IiJITY C:::)TTIRS
Poli~r lmPlemencacion Guideli~es
2.1 Tne Subregional Counc~l should adopt a
prelLminary designat~on of accivicy centers
consistent wich the criteria in Table l
and illustrated in Map l.
2.2 Map 1 included in this policy element is
prelimina=J, representing :he King Sub-
regional Council's judgment about locations
that could f~~ction as activity centers.
These judgments are Jased on physical
capacity of the areas, historial develop-
ment trends, probable transportation
capacity and apparent plar~ing commit-
ments by local goverr...rr:.encs.
2.3 Preliminary desi~ations of activ·ity
centers illustrated in Map l reflect general
locations and are noc meant to be site
( specific.
: \ v
2.4 The Subregional Council should continue
to consider and refine the preli:II.inary activity
center designations and map including
development of more exact locations,
more detailed employment analysis and con-
tinued coordination ~ith local governments.
2.5 Different kinds of investment priorities
are appropriate in che various categories
of centers. However, the center designa-
tions do suggest chat public investments
and other incentives to private develop-
~ent will be concentrated there rather than
dispersed to scattered sites elsewhere.
31
Type!~ of
Ceulel
I' I 1111<11 y
tit: 1 t opu I I -
1 au CeuU:r
~;e CUiiJ<i I Y
1-h:l ll>pO Il-
l 1111 Ce 111 l: 1
"
s' :<:e--
i\pplOX.
I u'l-1111 It:
ApprtlX.
1/'!. !.itt. ml.
AA
~~·c l'a~e Jlt
Ti\111.1:: I:,
Cit I TEit I A FOil i\CTI VI TY CENTEH I.Ot:AT ION ANI) llEVELOI'NENT
Sp-uc-lng ~-~Hoii-..:: --
uunul'uc-
I.IIL"illj!.
Cdterlu
Eiii 1-.foy•i•o;llt::-l--~olrr-c-e----~--~ Ret~ ---~·i;y~p-fcal Ht x
llenully S}liiCe Space ot lbeu
(Set. fl. ) (StJ. ft.) .~.-,
~-----I~ !;!!l~~y~eu_
One per
Legion
-A 1 ~1 ilox:--6~
u ud 1 e :1
ft~Uiu other
p .--luw r y or
:.;ccondary
CCIIlt.!ltl
~o.ooo or
IIIOl"C
201)/ UCl"U
oc more
15,000,000
o ,~ more
5, 000 • 000
Ol" more
-1o~ooo-~cii--I --o o r;.--c i(! o i -I --3~omc ooo --1-r.s-ooJ:lO-o-~
IIIOI"I.J. 1110 t t! 01-IIIOl"C 01~ more
----..-----------~-------------
~
-Cwup a r i-
uou uhop-
ping
-Ofl'i ceu
-Govenl-
mcul
-Eule1-
lUIIIIllenl
-S~wd u l ty
ti wp,;
-lligh .ten-
td I y ,~e:.d
tlentlul
-lllgh •le-
gt·ee of
upecL.d-
i:.::aliou
Ju UUtJ:.I
-l.ociltlon
0 f Ill d 'Ill I.!
U!Jt.!ti
~-=-s ilm-e -us
uhuvc, ex--
t:epl l hat
uh:e und
iulcn:.;ily
of uue
wl U I.e
le!ltl 1.hu11
Ill l hi!
pt·lulitry
mel n•po I l ~
Iiiii ceulcr;
till .I t. he I_ e
\Jill nut
be so
1111111Y ,;pee-
lull :<:ell
U~C!J.
-lutcrcity
t!Xjll"C.tltl
-lutcr-
Ulillc ft·ee~
WilY
-luleruul
lUHuil l
Ui.! 1"V I l.:t!
-Pollcleu
Lo ditJ-
cout·uge
fl t! '-' • 1 0111! -
le 1111 illll o
p111l' lug l11
ceulel
-Eucout<tge-
IUeut of
Cil I"JliHII tJ ,
othc1-high
oc.:Upilllt:y
vehlcle!l
--_ ti<p l~t! !l ti ~
hu,; I.:UIIIIe C-
Ll tJtlti to
l'r l111L11 y
Hetru
Ccnte L-
-Fudll-
ties fot
hus tum.u-~
fe1 point:;
-Fn:eway
1111 J lui ·~ 1 -
1:il y ill I
I! I I u I :1
-lulerlllll
ll-illl:.ijiOI
Lilli Oil
uytilCIIIti
llt:>J Ia <~I, I e
-Local lnl!l
ueavlcc en-
---~~~!..!!..!!~!0~:
Hcui~:.u
He Iiiii
1.:111c c louc
lO illld
eu:.;lly uc-
t:e u u ild e
hy lfilll!lit.
U> ot.hct-
duiJIIL UWII
CIIIICi~llll-U
liOII:i UL
e ul e .-1 a in -
lilt! IlL. cuI-
IUiili, Le,;l~
di!IILitll,
uu:dl cal,
ed11Clll I !lllill
iiCI J vlt I eti.
Etuj>h il,; J u
oil :Jiafe
uud pleil-
:iillll ped-
e:Jllltlll
IIIOVl!lllelll
m.~,lil·l-:t.e-·
1'11:e lou~:.
lellll p111k-
lug IJi Lhi II
Cl!l\lel
l'e 1 iphe 1 at
l"lrki••g fo.-
ll!l iiJ l CU:J
llllliCltl
Struug pcJ-
e:JltLIIII
lll"lt!lll <~--
I. lou uilldu
ceuter.aud
Cllllllt!CI. jIll!.
IJ i Ll1 ud I u-
Celli uelgh-
holhllodu.
Cont.J_ •
LJ
LJ
c
l'uge '1.
. '(y pc t; f
c., .. , i! t•
Utl>an
Ill !ll rl ct:;
:;ut;,,,·l>an.
Cenle•u
k
1\pprox.
I I '• !l<t. ml .
f..11 1;r(lx. ----''u t~q.mt.
Set: l'u!!e ]4
••
r""'\
\ )
'1'1\IILE 1*
CRITEHIA FOil ACTlVITY Ct::NTEII LOCATION ANI) llEVELOI'NENT
--------·----~--------------------------------~---·---·------------------·----~---~------
Crllerl a
tt
· --·srliclng .. -·-r---No,)---~---Empfoyment ·· · ··crrtl-c-e-·-----Ret a rr-
Space
'fypTcarHrx.·r -1c(:esu ___ T __ hc~lg'l\
Approx. 2
1111. f ··om
l'dulilry ol'
!ie t:onda ry
cenLers
Aj)p i·ox
5 ml. from
other !lllb-
ul'han 01·
tlCcOudu1·y
ccutcn1
Nanufac-llcu:l1Ly
l~td ng
--~~~!! ~·y~~l! ...
10,000 or
11101'(!
uppt·ox.
60/acre
--·2--:ootf-or --~-App r·ox.--
u•o•·e ]0/ucre or
more
spnce
( fi(J. fl. )
Serves
local ill'ell
pel Ill/If 11 y
·serves
lund urea
pri•nur1ly
( Stt. ft. )
Varlet~
according
to size of
t.rutle urea
of IJ!le!l
;~-);
-Couven-
lence re-
L alI fLII.
!let·vj ce
arcil pop-
ulllt ion
-S,1ecl 111Ly
II IOJlll fo1·
wl dt:r
11111d1Cl
iJl-ea
-EIII.Cl'llllll-
1111! Ill
-lust:ltu
tlonal
U!JC!J
Vac ea Sa111El 1111
-... -·-{------~-. ----·--·
ahove, hul
I ower lu-
tenully
-An:eri nl
H[fCi!ltl
-Local
lt"illlllil
Utl Wlll·-
l.illlt:Cd
-t-lay he illl
t!IIJlfL!ti!J
l.l'llll!lll
u I. lljl
~-A-.~~-e 1 Lit -
utreclu
··lute.-..:11 y
hu!lcu
COIIIIC C l
lo I'L·lm;IL·y
aut.! flcc-
tbu·y
Ccnlctu
-l'e<icHII·j illl
UIIICIII l I c ti.
c1o:.; -
llpac-
ilcllvlliL:u
-l'ctlc!i I r i 1111
and nou
Ill Ill. ll I I I. c d
UL'l'C!jt,i
-!.ioUlt! I llll!;
I.: rut
jlilll( i_!lb
'9
Co11td
OJ
~
I' 11ge 1
'l'y ,;e--(If
c .... , .. ~,-
luolepcn-
d!!lll Towll
c.~n• e,
·· tlnl c :
~
TAIIJ.E 11.-
CR LTEIU A Hllt ACTIVITY CENTER LOCA'I' ION AND HEVELOI'HEffl'
----------------~--~---------·· -------
Gdtt:dn -size----,-·-sraail&--,----Nili1~--
· Hanufne-
tut·Jng
---£iii 1;royliaentl ___ orn-ce--
uensity Spuce
(S<j. fL. )
-retnll--f'r}irlcnt-m-x ~--.Acces_a __
Space of Uscu
(Sq. ft.) **
--lii! id git
_ _!;;!l_l{l J uy~~~--
Vadeu ApproK.
I I H H<j.
wl.
Approx.
1 :J 1111.
Sallie au
ahove
Suwe au
uLove
Vurleu
ueconll 111~
to lhe
sfze of
the lll'Cll
-E•aul.plllclll
ualeu aud
IJIHVf Ce
-ltelial 1
-lllghway
-AI'ledal ' f u11u SuL-
urban or
Sccondat·y
Ccnl et·u
Thc:Je Clllegorl•!ll are IJrulled to the klndu of
Hcilvlty centers covered in the •lefinltlon
ulul.cmenl. ll iu ucknowle,Jged that othet·
ldnd11 of llcllvlly concenlratlnnll do exltit
and shou J •I I.e eneout·uged h y I oca I I and IItle
I' lnnu. Inc ludell I 11 these coneenl rnl J 01111
would he rct.aJ I shopping ce~tlcru, office
and huulneus patku, I ndusl .-J u l pat·ks •n·
olher· UliiiHtfaclur·Jng 11reaH. Hany of thetJe
lwcause of tho..Jr· locution ot· function may
-Govent-
ment.
-SI!IVf ccu
-ScI f -Huf-
fideul
t; 1: l'el• lu
-Tl·<utu i I
COIIIICC-
Iiollll Ill
other
cenlc ,~ u
atJ war-
E~~~~~~!-
practically be set·ved only by private vcltlcles. OllaenJ,
suclt Llll cet·tnfu lut·ge scale lndustl'Jul employtucnl couceu-
Lrutionu, may warr1111l sawcialfzed kilub of lratwll an•l high
"
occupwaey vehicle uet·vJce. TnlllSpiH·tallon lcnnln;tls or lt-atwfcl
pulnls nwy often l>c taq~o.!ls fot· spcclulL:cd tuuaslt t~en•Jee,
wll:houl nct:et~!lilrfly havlllt~ olher tllvcrulfl•!d chanact.c•·l!Hicu
of ucl.l vi t.y ceutc ru.
~
•
Tlw mix. of tHic:J Ulltllllllll'lzctl In thfu eoluuan is illuatrai.Jvc only.
ltnpl<!IIWIILUI Jon Gul tlclfllc I. 2.
Fucllaer dct.al J Ju pn!seuted iu Policy
(. •
• •
MAP 1
P~E!.lMINARY ACi1VITY CENTERS
KING SUBREGION
~~
:-!a~oJ.,.;.:,m ~:u
'3-..z:::a.~
~e=ooL~=.m ~cu
.. • 0 ~.:..;,a04"1:!4.81U: ~ -="C
:.u:car:s
r·.l ~. :..;:~c:.a~ s~ .::~ ~.J :.ao ~....-.
:-=-n.i!..:ac.. .1.l::-..:..a..i.. '..:c..ac:.~u me:. -:=:.:::::..:.·-=-:z ..
::...=n l:"a 1 '2C':.u" j: · .. ~c:.a!. z~e
~'":':..J:~.::::..=n.
'!:m 1~0.i..s "" t-'..JQ z~w:-3-i.!.::.tc. ~.1::'11 ~
~-.N.:Se....::-:""_..:,. :...:..;.:J~":'!-:as ..:. :.:.a .s.:....:a .; :
!2ti.C:U2 ·.n..:.:.:..:: :.:.a l•• :.a.c.•-ro-:-:"
15
_,
\ . -"'-j .
)
I
I
4"'
.----~·
/_ .... _·.
,-,
J~
("
I .... ~ ~-
-··_.,I
POLICY 3
,.
TSE ULTIMATE DESIGclATION OF ACTIVITY CENTERS
RESTS WITH LOCAL GOVERl'111ENTS. LOC • .U. GOVERN-
MENTS SHOULD AE'FIR-.1vf OR REVISE TF...E PREL~'1I:NARY
ACTIVITY CENTE~ BASED UPON THE CRITE~T~ IN
TABLE l. THE SUBREGIONF-..L COUNCIL SF-UL .?.EVTE:T..J
~1D ADOPT DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS wiTHIN
18 MONTHS OF ADOPTION OF TEE KT::lG SUBREGIONAL
PLAN
Policy ImDlementacion Guicilines
3.1 Map 2 in ~his policy element is blank as
of the date of Subregional Plan adop-
tion. Verifications and changes co Map 1
will be recorded on Man 2, which will then
be adopted as t~e Activity Center Designation
Map.
3.2 Table 1 includes the criteria for activity
center designations. It describes the size,
density, typical activity mix and crans-
portacion characteristics of various types
of activity centers. Local governments
should utilize this table as a basis for
recommending revisions to che ?reliminary
designations on Map 1. The King Sub-
regional Council will utilize Table 1
to evaluate revisions recommended by local
government.
3.3 Table 1 together with applicable map will
be used by local governments and the King
Subregional Council co evaluate public
expenditures that would encourage activities
appropriate co particular kinds of centers.
3.4 The designacions of activity centers imply
eligibility for varJing kinds of public
funds co enhance traffic circulation and
transit. T~is means that che designations
are of subregional significance and will
reauire concurrence bv the Subregional
Council's member gove~encs in order to
become a valid basis for distribution of
such f't.:. ... ~ds.
3. 5 Local ?"ove-::-:-..men::s should i.'roDos e zeo~raphicall~1
S ~e~~~~c ~c~~v;~7 ~~nc~~ ~es~~~a-~ons ~v ~ --~-c. --~--., --.1. --..... -!=-·· --... ..
resolution a~d cotmm.:.nicate proposed desi~na-f,
tions or revisions to the Subre£ional Council
for eval~a~ion and inco~oracion as oar~ o£
t~e Subre£icnal ?la:;.. ·
36
('
)
)
j
• •
\
')
I
)
?":'~
.'!.sr::~ol.~:3:ft :...::.:.1:
~ .. "!..::!-=..ol:-
:'!...1-::-::-o .. _:..:.=. :.o~.:O:.l:'
MAP 2
OESICNATEO ~Ci1VITY CENTEFiS
KING SU8FiEGiON
r-.. :.::.:::.3;~-n-:..aa:: : .;-.. "'tl
'-._! ; .... e:.~.~,
37
-·-
---
\ -
;.•
I
t
r·-
·,-
)
.I
-
-/
"-1
r-,_ ....
.f:-w
0 0 1-'· L __ , L->.'0 1-'·'lJ , .... 0 El ([I , .... ft rt H
t·h 0 t:J 0 ([I ~ ~ C:: ::1 I '· 1\1 H1 ::1 -'· 1-'· ::.r' ll,ffi <! (} 0 tr'' a· IJI CL l·h IJl IJl 0 CD
I'· · ro 111 n 1--' li I"" 0 'U Cll (ll rt 'l1 ::J
0 1-'· IJl I _, 1-'· I~. 0 1-'· ro ([l 0 1-'· (I) .. 'D
10 n [J <: o ~ n ::1 li " ~-• n 11 r: rJ I ~ ((J (II rt Ul 0 1-'· r:: Ill Ill tJ'
r.: ro ([l 111 1/1 fll EJ I I 10 I '· <~ H 1-'· p· 1-•
u, :J ;J IJ () (1) I i If 0 11 ((J I·'· 0 0 I·'·
1\J n n p. 0 (} ::1 Ill UJ :J Ill :J 0 ;:1 ~ {)
UJ {JJ 1 11 to n ;J , ... · ([l :J ,_.
'd ~ IJl {JJ Ill ~: 0 :J Ill flJ 0 (l. !ll
L.i I'· 1 I tl ~ n UJ .. I '· 0 I h 1·11 !ll 1--' I h (II
OJ !JOO(lJ :J· II r:: 0 '-.../ p.n
'd ro flJ n 1--' flJ li 0 IIJ I '· II n.o O•o ;1 ~J' Ill p. (l /l I 11 n () Ill 0
(D 0 (/) 1-' 111 p .. ro :·1 f1 to ::1· n o •i (/) :1 f\l (11 () I i {). li I '· ·u fll , .... o-
I~·{) I··· u fl ID ([I ([I ~ (1. r: I l <: n
WI Ill Ul Ill 1 •· ~J o··u p. 11• tD o· t-'· 1 n rt ~j ~ ID '<l Ill ~~ I I Ul 1--' ~ f1 jil !J.
Ill 1 1 Ill Ill , .•. lj (l. () I '· 1-'· I '· I '· 1-'· Ufl I i
t I II :J· :J fl O•l (l CD ID ID (~ () 1-' ID /ll 0
!IJ Ill 0 (l. '<I '<I 0 Ul IJl •-t-• IJl r;
(1. tl ,-: ;:1 I I fl fll I '· (LUQ
(II 1-' , ... n o n 1 I ::.1" 1 r r·1 tJ fl . .-.. r: :_1'
{II (l. 0 Ill 0 II I'· (I) lTIIJ <..! ~ ti 'd
() fl () :J :1 111 111 f\l fl. (lJ Ill 1-' 1-'
n Ill Ul 1\.l n Ill (l. :·J EJ II U1 Ill n I '· Ill
, .•. c •. r..: ,_. tD ell 1~-f\l o n oq 1u n H <: o·u 11 lj (l IIJ lj Ul (II 1:1 Ill 1-'• f\1 (l.
t-'·li 'd 0 <! II Ill ;.>;· ~J· ::1 10 1--' n
rt 0 jll () I'· I'· fl ([I 0 II !1 n ~ I-'· f~ '<l ,., l•i • u o ~J !J I '· n r. llJ r1 l:J' OIJl
Ill rl I'· :-J OQ UQ t-• 1--• I·( (Jl ([I () ;1 ([I
n n II n 1-'• I II (.L Ill ~
ID Ill t--' jU Ill 0 rt II 0 o' n 1-• o 11
;1 I'· 0 1--' ·u o· !Y'~ li ,_. ([I 0 II J-j Ill
rt ,_. 0 n I 10 0 I'· (/) r: UQ
Ill flJ () :J n 11 j'!
11 111 1-' fU UQ I 111 ,_.
Ill :J n 1--' f\l
p. ID .. I
• ( ..
''!..,_
.f:-f>
10 1-'
a n p~ , .... :;u (/) 0' a II '0 fl_! 1-'· I }
CD ::r 1-'· :J ro :r '-<l CD 1-'· 0 r. t.J P
~ Ill ttl p· o t.J o n '· ro
rt rt • p. Ill ~ n rl :::1 Ill IJl ;s;
ro Ill tr 1--' !:J. (/) :.1 ,, Ill (}
f\1 IJl IJl IJl I'· ~=~· ro c, n 1 ···d 10
lJ n c t t-'· t--' · 1J 0 I~. IJ tj
fL 1-'· OJ 1-'· U''<l p. 1·11 IIJ OQ 1-• rt EJ ·u : n ([l ro ,_. Ill
l'h r:: ti '" fll ~ 0 tl o 111 li
0 1-'1-'· II 11 ;-J i I I Ill I I (II I'( Ill
t I Ill 0 Ill 1~-ro l.J' c1 o ·d Ill
n 11 n. o ID r-• (I) 111 Ill lj
ID Ill 1-'· r.t (l. \.0 t I I '· 11J 0 u· Ill
n no (1J '0 t-~o 1~-ro o
0 lj '-<J Ill 0 (L 0 p• .. () I I 1-• Ill
::J Ill :1 ti I'· o '-<l I •-I·'·
o rt 1-11 n u· 0<1 P rn Ill :1 f3 Ill o Ill 11 Ill :r 0 111 <J I ·
I'· I'· li tl ID I I) ~; 5 0 I'J (\J :J
()I • (/) n. 0 0 !-'· '1 (l. p. P.UQ ·u Ill II lJ Ill (II --
(l. Ill r; UJ <: Ill L:l n lJ n o n •u
Ill ,J tf rr ro Ill ID ~ to I I u ~~
.;! p. t-' 0 I -' n LJ. rJ I II Ill
(I) 1-·· ~ 0 ::.~· 0 (/) IU IJ lj p· 1--·
1--• o o •-••cJ Ill 1·1 I·'· n (\1 Ill IU I'·
0 t·h {). fJ :1 I I 11 c •. p. <J IJ
'd t·h 1-'· ID • ;.J '<l I~ 0 Ill Ill -'· 8 1-'· !J u· :1 10 lj li ~ IJ
ID n <: ro rt ~ t; I'· ID (ll Ill
:J Ill ro :J () 1--' !1 1
rt (/) oq ·u 0 10 UQ 0 0 0 ''
{). n 1-'· rj 10 Ill p ·d r.
,.,. 10 H <! o :J Ill () 8 IN fl.
~<;fliiDG· n Ill p Ill ID :1· CD
I ([I ::1 !1 (1) w ~ ·a :1 :i (/)
CL ..._. n {) 11 • · t-• n n t·'·
lll o 111 n rt (/) (\J 0 II Oil
'0 !J' VI n '-<l 111 :J
I ID n I I jll
Ill (I
p. 1'-
0 :-1
,~
1--'
I'·
n ~
I -1
~
1-.
10
13
ID :1
n
Ill
n
I'·
0
rJ
,;·) r: ...
n.
Ill
j-•
I'·
!l
Ill
(/)
lttt
•u
0
t--1
H
n
t<!
f:-
~fJf.l Otj
~~tp 1-H
t.rH-l
~ .. z (/) .
P.: 0
no~ t•1 p 11
~ ,_,
•l t~ n tJ t•1 t·• ..
lllO
~I;) 0
I~ _.
l• w
··~ ~ ~~ !')
II
Ill r
I ) ..::::
Ht:J
~/. _ _.
r.q~
ct b! t-•
0 ~ ~~ !.?, I .
I lTl
r::~ !.2:: 1-]
t:J
_, ..
I .,
-
I ....
II
~----------·t•---------------~--------------~ POLIC~ 5 ACTIVITY CENTERS SHOTJLD BE LOCATED P....1.'1D DEVELOPED
IN A MANNER 'rdAT ENCOL"RA.GES A 7N'IDE VARIZTY OF
HOUSING CHOICES \•411ICH .:Li\E rtiG'.ciLY ACCESSI3L.2 !0
T'.dE CENTERS .
Policy Imo lementation Guide.li.nes
5. l This policy may ':le implemented ln a vari.e cy
of ways, depending en type of center,
existing development in and near ~he
center, community at~it~des, etc. ~~e
central idea is co promote opportunities
for closer ties between residential
locations, employment and shopping locations.
5.2 Housing and job location choices should be
diversified in King County, through deliber-
ate public encouragement a£ employment
locations in activity centers that are
large and concentrated enough to warrant
good transit service to and from diverse
kirids of housing areas.
5.3 Local option shall guide housing densities
adjacent to designated activity centers.
POLICY 6
•··
CIRCuLATION SYSTL~S I2rv~STME~TS RELATING TO
ACTIVITY CENTERS SrtOGLD GIVl~ PRIORITY TO
PEDESTRT~~. NON ~OTORIZE~ ~~~D ?CELIS T~~~SIT
ACCESS.
Policy Imnlemen~a~ion Guidelines
6.1 Public inves~menc in :=ans~ortation - . 1 . . • . • . . . -~ac~-~t~es ana se~ces prov~~~ng sare
and convenient ~ovement co, within ~id
between exiscing ac:ivity centers should
be given a higher priority than expansion
of entirely new transportation facilities
into outlying areas.
6.2 Public transit facilities and services
should be provided as n~eded to accommodace
increasing patronage attracted to activity
centers.
6.3 Communities that have made commitments to
develop centers, and are making effor~s
to guide appropriate activities there, ~ay merit preferential treatment in ~
expanding transit service, installation of
traffic system modifications, and transit,
pedest=ian or non motorized amenities.
6.4 Local jurisdictions will con~rol peripheral
development of uses :hat detract from the
integrity or ease of access :o a designated
center.
~-----------·-----------------·----------------~ POLICY 7 CZNTI:RS SHOULD BE PU.-L'WED AND DESIG0i'ED 70 CON-
SOLIDATE T~~1SIT DESTINATIONS ~1D P~OMOTE
PEDESTRL~\l Ai'iD LOC.U. TR..-'U\IS IT CONl'IECTIONS i..i'ITEI)I
THEM.
Policy Imnlementation Guidelines
7.1 Interpretacion of this policy will va_ry
according to type of center (see Table 1).
High rise buildings incerspersed with law
intensity uses may ~n some cases work as
well as a large number a= meci~ incensity
uses.
7.2 Communities receiving public investment
funds to encourage activity center develop-
ment should adopt plans and land use regula-
tions that foster sufficient mixtures,
quantities and concentrations of activity
to justify the public invest~ents.
7.3 wbenever feasible, employment concentrations
in activity centers should be convenient
7.4
to other urban se~;ices, to reduce the
travel distance between businesses and
frequently used ser;ices, and employment
and shopping locations.
·' co.,.,...,.,,...,; -y' s 'ni C"hes t .... "'S.; ...1eT"It-i ;::i c·ensi .. ; a.s a ~........., .. _L •c~· .:..._ ....... ------· • .. ~---
should be located in or near an activity
center, connected to ic by suitable ped-
estrian, non motorizec and transit access
routes.
POLICY 8 LOCAL GOVEru~ffiNTS SHOL~D PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO
PRIVA7E IN"~iESTHENT DI ACTIVI'I'Y CENTER DE7ELOP-
MENT, CONSISTS'1T 'WITH :..ocu. ?OLICIES.
Policv I~lcmen~a~ion G~del~nes
8.1 Public measures to facilicacc land assembly
should be devised wic~~n designated activity
cencers.
8.2 DeveloDmenc ~e~i: orocesses should be . 1 . -,. . d - . . ' . ' . h . , . , s:unp-~r::..e ana expea~cea w-:..t.:. ::!...n aes:..gnatca.
activity centers.
8. 3 The ·subregional Cotm.cil should explore and
publicize tec~!iques which provide incentives
which attract appropriate development to
activity centers for those local governments
that elect to promote activity center(s)
within their jurisdictions.
8.4 The Subregional Council should review and monitor
federal and state programs which directly or
indirectly have an adverse impact on activity
center development and call those impacr:s to the
attention of the responsible agencies.
C·
TRAN SPO RTATl ON
Introduction
The transporta~ion objectives and po~~cies in the Subregional • -Plan are intended to define the aDPropria~e role far tr~~s
portation in suppor~ing the development and grow~h ma~age-:.
ment objectives of local jurisdictions and ~~e King Subregional :
Council. They att~pt to indicate the type and location •
of transpor~ation improvements which are most camp acib le ~..;i ch ~
~
and supportive of the land use decisions which will be -
influenced by the Subregional Plan. ~
The subregional transportation policies buil~ on a~d support
the regional policies defined in the Transportation Sysc~
Plan. They are not intended as replacements of the regional
policies but as an elaboration of rhose regional policies
related to growth and development.
Objeccives and ?::-obl:.!!ls Add.=essec.:,~, :.::e. :':::-ansvo=--:::::r::ion ?oli~ies f
r.~e r::=~~spc=-::ac~on seccion at:~~=s :o add=ess c~e ~=ili:y
,-. .., . . . "' . .. . o.r c=a.-:.s~or::~=~·~n oc·~.:.;::.es a..:.~c. .s:;s-:a!:ls .. -.:...anc. ~..:..se ?.la..-m..:.:1g.
I,... ai ~a ::_"' C""'~ i :o::::o ~------~ .::..,.-::. ::-:. ~.::.r-.:.--:.::: ,..=; l '7 ~--.; l ::~;::::. -• -~ __ ...;.::-·---~ ---~;_ -----._ ___ N __ ------., .::.vc:.---J....J--
• To suppo=~ :~ose :ransoor-
cation ~acilicies and ser-. ' . . . . v~ces Nnlc~ are C8ns~sce~:
with stib=e=iona1 ~o,,.c,.es 0 --_..., -concernin= ac ci 7~ "r-.., C::>M r.::>-:::: !::' ---.~ -...... ._ __ _
an d ~1. e t: i,..,; ..., co -= 1'"1 ,..: 1 o c :: t ; on --·~ __ ._ ---
0 ;: -=r-o .... -r-~ --o-""-~•.
• To encou=age ~ansporca
cion sol~cions N~ic~ 3~~=
~,, 1 1 u· s e ~"~ ~ ""x·i --.; "~""' =
---------~ l.---.J.o
£acili:ies and services
' -0 • oezore =eso=~~~g :o tne
e.;roa.J.sion o£ :::.e. e..x.is:i_.::g
system.
• ""'o e.,.., --,, i-..... .-::0. -__ ..,_ .::._ ----."-; "':7 __ . ~ .. _: 1 ~-· ... --··'-":'~.::.?----· a= .:c.c:.._.:..:.:..e..s a:::C se:-~r:.;...ce.s
wt-!.i ci-'~ allow ::= 2."'1.: l e.= s 2.1..-
:er:-~a::i'Je.s :J s~::g.:...~-
?e=sc:: :.:.sage
a.u-:osoc:...:.:s.
• ~--ns~o~~::~~o~ ~-=c'1 ;~y ~v---c.:.. .. ":" ---"--!,.;. ------~
censions can e:1cou=age develop-
~enc :..~ a fashion s~ilar co
o~her ~~o:ic facili~ies
• Const::.='...:.ction ar:..c. O"?e=ac:.::g cos:s ., . ' ... a=e esca~a::.ng wn:..:...e :rans-
~o ...... ---~ "i~ -~,--~,,o-~o-h =:.•.-<:.-~'-••-'--':<:~•'-:-;:::.,-' \...1.-
r:ec:.e=al a:i::d J..Ocal., a::~ :::-e-
maining cons:~lt or C.e-
c_:...:.:::..~g. l-a.oDea=s :::e=e--. "' ' r ...,,...~ , :..., ar c.; , • .::.-r"~ C''.,...~"'.,.... ~
-'-'--, -·---o-}1-;.,J,. ---··-
rave~~= =~~ecasts, ~any or
cr:e c.::-anspor::at:i:Jn ~ ~?=ove-
3encs i_ncl~ded in =~= :990
T.::-anspo.::-~a:ion Sysc~ ?:a:i:l
czn~o~ ~e afio=cied o~ will
~~ve :? be ?O?~?oned. T~e.se
.::_::a::c.2..al ~::co J..e...=S cou~ l:C..
~..,~i=~ wubli:. ser;..:=....:rre::: wt.icn
o!ten ooDoses faci~i::y con-
. . -. -=.-:.:..c:: ~ar:s:..cn c.= =·~2.c.:~c.::
' ' . c.a.?c..c.:. ::t ~r: ::!.e ----..;<::..--
• J::=: .. ~.::g a._:_or:e. ~.s :.::e ~e2.s:
===~=~en: =ea::s --:=ave.:... -. ... . . ::c a c.-~· c.·; = 2. =:..._:_:.:. e s .2.=e ::a:
a:q a.:: =..e C., s :.:...:.:: :. ::~ 2::: ::.a? a~:_ ::1
·,.;:....:....:.. :-:0:: exi::::
::oc.~s - -·...:sec ...
Transportation Objectives
e To encourage transpor-
tation improvements which
are compatible with a high
cost energy future and with
an anticipated scarcity a£
petroleum based fuels.
0 ·~ ~" • _roo .Lems .. aa:::-es sea
• Many people are
unable to drive ~~eir ow~
• --. . 1 cars oecause a~ t~~anc~a-or
physical constraints.
• Energy casts can be expected
to rise in t~e futu=e,
particularly far petroleum
based fuels, at the dictates
a£ world ma:::-ket conditions.
Short term shortages a£
petroleum, at any price, may
also occ,..l:::'.
L!.-)
POLICY 1
TRANSPORTATlON POLICIES
TRANSPORTATION ?ROJEC~S SnOL~D BE DEVELOPED wiTH
EMPHASIS ?U.CED iN TE FOL.:..OWING ORDER (TriiTliiN
EACH CATEGORY, ~~ROvu~NTS TO BENEFIT T~~~SIT
AND OTHER niGH OCC'GPA1'ICY VEHICLES, 7w1iEN .:l..P?ROPR' ~TE,
SHOu"'LD BE GIVEN ?REFEENCE):
A) ~~ROVEMENTS TO ?ACILITIES NECESSARY TO
CORRECT EXIST'NG S;....FETY ?ROBLS'1S .:l.J."'D
MAINTAIN STRUCT17AL INTEGRITY &\ID OPERATIONAL
CAPABILITY OF FACILITIES .~1D SYST&~S;
B) LlvfPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO L.'1PLEMENT THE
KING SUBREGIONAL PLfu1 BY INSURING THE
VIABILITY OF DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS,
CONSISTENT WITH THE C~~CTER DEFINED FOR
EACH TYPE OF CENTER;
C) LOW CAPIT.~ SOLu1IONS TO TRru1SPORTATION
PROBLEMS, COMPATIBLE WITH SUBREGIONAL
ACTIVITY CENTER ~1D PHASED GROwlH OBJECTIVES,
Wd!CH BETTER GTILIZE EXISTING T~~1SPORTATION
FACILITY ~~D SERVICE INVES~ffiNTS;
D) C~..PITAL INTENSiv~ L'1PRO~~NTS, COMPATIBLE
WITH SUBREGION.~ ACTIVITY CENTER &1D PHASED
GROw~H OBJECTIVES, WHICH INCREASE THE
CAPACITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES;
E) NEW FACILITI~S IN AREAS SUITABLE FOR INCREASED
DEVELOPMENT AS DEFINED BY SUBREGIONAL ~.J.1D
LOCAL PLP.NS.
PolicY Imrolementation Guidelines
1.1 The King Sub=egional Council should request
local ~,,.,..;sa'ic-..:o,..,s "',..,,..; o-·ne--r::enc..:.:>s '"o
--~ -· - -~-1..0. W.....J....... 1..... ..... .::::..0 .Ia ...:.. - - .
incorporate these prio=ities into their
evaluation of ?ro~ects.
1.2 The King Subregional Co~~cil should in-
corporate these ?riorities into its mechanism
for allocat~~g ?ederal Aid Croan System
f'..:IldS .
f"·.
\
l. 2 The King Subregional Council should develoD
the subregional component of the updated
Transportation System ?lan so as ::o identi£7
subregional transportation problems and
needs and to indicate the aDDroximate ~evel
and type of facility and se~r .... ce L:rrprove-
ments needed to solve the problems and ~eet
the needs.
I -'-l./
POLICY 1 TE:: DEVE!..OP~)iT 0? 7?-.~'IS?ORT_.l..TION
FACILITIES . .l...:.'l'D SERV:c:::s ScOLD :-:lOT GE~ZRA.7E
?RES SURES ?OR JE',l::::..o?~:r: I:,TC:Jtv.c? A:':3:...::: ·,.;:-:~ LOC:U.
OR S1}3REGIONP.~ 03-.;~C:"I-:r::s .
2.1
2.2
2.3
T.~e ~i~g Suo::-eg~~n~~ Co~~ci: shou~~ ~o~ . . . . . -. atJ-o::-ove :.ncJ.'..:.s:. :Jn ::.:: :ne .:. = ar:.s-w o::--::a::.:.on
I ,:,.;..,-ovome.,...,--::--,c--.::-, oF "'.,...,7 ....,-,..,~ ~,....---;...,; ,......, ......,.!"" """' ' --.. ;. - - -'-I 0--' --• :: -~ .J -':""-N 1.---•-
ex::enc.s :::-a.-;::s?o::-::a:::.on se!""'r.:..ce.s :.~:::~ a.:.-:y . . . . . -. . , a=ea y,;"n2-~:l :...s ::oi: =eac:~' :or 1,;.=:Jar.. ce,re~O?-
'""ent -ceo-,..;~---a ~ oc ...... : a~ -.... .,...,_.=-,_..; ·"'"'r'l--1 .... -<=-""'---~:s --C.--;:) '--'--o-""''·c.-
P la.."'1S.
~e K.;,..,c-::;;,,o-"'c-i ,......,.,; Coun-i 1 -~ou',.... -eoL--..~.: ... ~-... o -~ -='-:-...~~,. .. c:;;.= 1 .. '---. ~~~ ... --.;:, _.;--.
aaJuSt:;:J.en:s :.n :.:1e .:ec.e::-al A.:..J. C::-oan
Boundar:; as necessa::--j :a i~su::-e :hat: all
areas likel·y :o ~e st:.b i ec:: :a C.evelo-o-~ .
ment: p::-ess~res Ni:~in :te nex:: a~e :a ~NO
decades ~== inc:,_1:::ieC. ~.;i:~in :.::e ':Jou....."'l.d~::-y.
Tl1.e K.ir;.,g Subreg:.onal. Ccu....~c:..l sh.otllC. C.e':lelop . . . ., -' . . t~e s~o=eg~ona~ 2Cffi?Cr.en: c= =~= ~pca:ec
Trans-oor-ca-:ion Svs::e:::J. ?::..a.z: so as :a ind.:..ca.t:e --.oro:_,..;,.,..,,~ '.::.··cl-o~ c.::'"'-c.~;-"'\-::>nc.' --~~--; ce d.~. ..-...-:-~--~-,'"--.;:, -:._-:!'"'d. --/ --~=:. v_
Co .....,Dat~ ....,l o ----r; --,o C.'--:::~~;::,.,.-,--7--o-or w... _...; __ 1\1~'--· \.l.J.---~---~ .. ._ '-~ 7-.:;:, -
activitv cer.te::-s a~:::i sho~lc ~o: ~~o::-ove " .. imp::-ove:::J.e::.:s r..;hi2~ r.,.·ou.~d er:.cc'l..!ra.ge
in excess of t2ese levels.
--. --==~~i~ ______ .....
POLIC'I 3
0
PUBLIC Pu\fD PRIVATE 7RA...\fS?OR':ATION FAC!l.Ir! AJ.'TD
SERVICE Ii'!PROIJE~:ITS \.JEICE _.;RE ~TOT ?t-rmJED 3Y
SUBREGION.ALLY -ADMI~l'ISTE?..ED T?......l.J'TSPORT.-\TION ?l'L'WS I
BUT P...RE CONSISTE)TT ~..;rr.:-1 TE::: ~!:-1G ST.JBREGIONAL
PlJu\f SHOULD BE ENDORSED.
Policv Imnlementation Guidelines
3.1 The Kin~ Subregional Council should assist
local ~overnments :.:1 iden::i£ying locally
funded transuor::ation :.=nrovements which
will support. local and subregional
development objectives.
3.2 The King Subregional Council should assist
local gover~~ents :.n identifyin~ local
transoortation imnrovements which mav
erode. subre?ional· development objectives.
c
PUBLlC UTJLIT!ES
Definition
Public ucilicies as usea Ln ~~~s Subregional ?lan c~nsisc of
t~e seT,yage COllection sys cems 1 ?t.:b lie wa cer C.is r.::-i::UJ:i.an sys cems
and the oumroing and t::-eaonent facilities far bach of ~hem.
Stcr.nwater Cirainage systems are nee specifically addressee by
the utilicy policies, ncr are private ucilities such as
telephone, gas, and electric power, althct.:gh some ge~eral
policy provisions apply.
Pu.roose
Availability of public utilities, particularly se,...vers, is
considered to be a major factor in determining the feasibility
of suburban residential development on any given piece of
undeveloped land. Therefore, oolicies stating how these
utility decisions are to be made are a ~ajar Indication of
what the King Subregional Plan means by p~ased g::-ow~h. Within
the phased growth concept, when an undeveloped area is
designated as se,..verable and open co development at urban
densities, an adequate level of other necessarv u=ban
facilities and services should be alreadv available to the
area, or local plans and timetables should insu=e their
availabili~J soon after development. Coordination of ucility
plans with chose for provision of ocher facilities and services,
and all of these with land use olans is cent::-al :o tte
Subregional Plan's intention. ·
The Subregional Co~lcil has a coord~~ative or ove=si~e role in
reviewing situations that require a regional perspeccive on
extensions of utiLity syst~s. T~e basic aoDrcach is co
encourage more efficlent use of existing svst~s before
developing new ones, and to assure that-co~on objectives of
member goverr..ments are addressed i£ a utility system e.xpans ion
is necessary.
51
l_H
t0
2.
]_
Geuenll Dlvlslon of Henpotwiblllt:Je:J for Hevlew of ProJects
And Plans Involving Significant Service Exteuslons
-~~-. ~~-~------~ ----------·-------
Met:ro 1
---
l<l ug
Sub-
r~gtonnl
Council
----~
Special 21Klng I ,. _ llleulth _Q!!!_~rlct~--_c~~!!!!l_ ____ Gt_~.:__ Aggn£ig~_
ldenttflcutlon of
problems and
11til lt:y service
needn.
0 • • •
-----------~------1--------1-. ---1-----1---~----1--------
Eval11atJon of
a I tenw t.lves.
Evaluation of
hen It h or
env I nmmentu L
nHpecLs.
• 0 0 •
1---1----------1---
0 0 0 0
------1-1----1-----------1--
•
•
1,. Teclml ca I p l annlng • •
') .
-----· 1---------------1-----------1---------
Evalual.lon of
computlblli.ty wlth
local land uHe
plans.
0
--------------------1-1-------------
• •
~
6. EvalunUon of
('OilliHl 1: j b {}j_ t y W f_ t:h
nuhreglonnl plan. • ~
-----·---•-~-----·--·--···-·-~ -------~-----------------------------------·-·--·---------------
!~~y: e Pr lma ry i 0 Secondary
lllndet· Metro Hesolutlon 2933, requeats for extensions or connections of wholesale sewer facll-
J Lien will not he recclved by Metro until all of the affecting zoning authorities have cert-
Ified their approval. The land use debate does not toke place on the Metro Council. However,
once urban land development is approveJ, then Hetro Joes have a key role, as the designated
;u-eawlde water-quullly plannl.ng agency ln evaluating alternatlve wasleunl:er mmwgement: tech-
niques (ltem 2). Thls role :is shared w:ith other ;urJsdlcti.ons.
2 1< I ~
r" ..
County <IIHI other Jut~isdi.ctious,
unde ,-I his I wad illl-'. ..
\-J hen < q -n t i 11 g a s a s e r v j c e p n> v I d t ~ r i 11 B p e c i a I ~ B 1. r· i c I. ~• •
Obj ec ti ves and ?roo le"!:J.S Ad.dres sed ]v ::ie ?'..:!.D l.:..c Utili ties ?a li::ies
The publ.:..c utility objecti7es :::::-espond :o a numbe=-of g::-owt:i
wanagemen t problems ide::1 tifieC. as ":-:at spots" i::1 c~e p 2..a.nni:1g
process.
Public Utility Objectives
• To encourage compact
patterns of u=ban
development t~at help
to economize on public
capital expenditures
and contri~ute to
orderly development.
• To improve t~e relation-
ship oeC""..teen utili.:y plans
and t~e ~lan~ed ~~~~~z ~~a
1cc~,~~n·~; ~-a~,-~ ------._._ o-wL ...
envisicnec i:: lcca.l ::..and
use ::..:...a.n.s.
P::-oblems Addressed
• Fra~ented develo?ment o£ land·
already provided Niti utilities
has resulted from past ~anage
~ent practices. According to
the 1977 Vacant Land Inventory,
as updated, a substantial acre-
age of developable land zoned
for residential use exists
within the local ser~ice are
of che King Cc~~ty Sewerage
General Plan. Several
thousand acres of sewerable
land are located on the outer
=ringes of :he ur~anized area.
The attractiveness of those
outlyi::g lanes for development
is a result of lower initial
accuisiticn cost, ease of land
assembly into economicel
development ~iits, Nillingness
0 ~ u~~,~~,, a·~s--~c--to ev-o~a· J. '-_....., __ .__ ... t..--~..,::, ·-~--....
se':.;er ar-.. d wate:::-, and county
~ani~~. t~at p~=mi~s f~nancially
reas~cle hous~~g c.ens~ty Nhen
utilities are available. A
number of disincentives ooerate
to drive investors away from
developing skipped over lands
already se~1ed :y utilities.
These include relatively
high ~a~d cos~s and t~~es, and
c.·~:=..:.-;c.,l-7 c; =--.::>m'c 1 ~~o '=,..,a· -------,J --o:::l.;:, __ ----~ --·· .
• Loca~ land use ::lans rarely
"'-a•~..; --ie s~,;~~ ~~ ;,,...,_ ~,.~ ~e 1 ~~es =:.-J_':-. ---~---·.·:.o-~-----.
53
=~r ~~=l~g c: ~=~-~::v extens~:ns. -. ......., 1 • ~ .. -r • ~:1e l.2!:C ·...:se ?.:...ans e..r:c.. =egl:.:..a~J.:Jr.s . .., ... . .. . .
c:~:.ca.:..J..:" sr:c,.~ e.nc-st:atc s1.c·...:a::.c::s,
~..... -., -n v~ r--1 e -~ -.. "! ..: ~ ---: ,-o -:-o -~..... o ...;UL. :' ~ ._. _,_ ..... ~ : ---c::..L ... --·-----
~-~~-~~~~~ ~~ c."e•Jol~,...,~a~-T.~c-~·_, r--~-~-~---------:-rl,;,.l,.-:·-·. -:~
.Lane ,....:.se. ?la.ns =:::-e~~...:e!:t.L:T :.::a.1..::ac:
areas :~ac a=e su~:able fo=
event~al cievel:=men: at a given
Public Utility Objectives
• To ~dentifv the K~nds
of utilitv.olannin~
decisions'that should
be considered in the
K . s . . , .l.nf: uoref:::.ona~
for"'.:!!l.
Council
Problems Addressed
dens~ty, ~u= provide ~o
criteria co ~~a~cace ~~~en
developed firsc. Soecific
tha:: cont:ex't.
• rr,..,-.: .,.,...e 1 ~1 ...:; QvQ 1 o""'~enr-:::.· ~... <:: c..,.,e o..JJ.~--....... ~--· ........ :---:--~ • 7 . -~
areas nas oeen prec::.p~catea
by unwarranted anticipation
of utilities due to orevious
extension oractices.-Public
health officials have anoroved
develonment of sent:ic t:a~~
svstems where soii conditions
cannot sustain such systems
indefinitely, in the expecta-
tion :hat sewers w~ll be
extenced when demand increases.
!bese kinds cf expectations
have tended to reinrorce
pressu~es for rapfd d:v7lopment
of lane on the u::-:Jan ::r:..n~e,
esnecially where development
:i~i~g ~s unclear ir-the
aPPlicable land use plan.
Sewer districts have.been
responsive to providin? sewer
service when requested ov major
subdividers.
• Due partly to the nat:u=e of
fundin? assistance pro~rams, the
solutions to local wate-:-q1...1.ali ty
problems ~ave often been
...... -,-:::.~.,,..;~,..""t= ;~ -=a'lO..,... ~-= <::,.....,...uc..-n-::1
:-' - -~ "-..... -.._ - -• .. ... ~ ..... ....... -..,; ._-1.. ----
~ro;:::.c--~-a TQsui-_;~_te.,.._-':" .....)-'-~· ;-'..;:) ---!..., •
centers connec:in~ to the
... :::.;.,.; on-1 -ewa""o -.:...ea;"""Tle,..,r-s·,--em ..... -~-· .. c:.~ .::: ~-~-~_._ .. ~--~;::: '-..
nave naa ~oortant lane ~se
consecuences ~ot a~ways
c:Jr.sis:e~:: ~""-:..~:: land \:.se
o b ~ e c t::.. ·; e s .
:-es -;J oncie C ~::.::. :a:c e= a.ll:r ~ :J . .. . ~ -. .
~=we~~ate ~roo~ems w~:~ou~ . . .. .. . -:~orou~~~y searc~~~£ :cr
a:..:e=::c.:::·..7'e .s::·2.:.::::.o:1s ~:::a: ~~ot::l·'i
Public Utility Objeccives
55
?~oblems Addressed
be ~are consistent ~ith area-
~ide ~o~h ~ana~emenc obiec-
ti ves '. F'-.lilc tional o lans ~or
imDrovin~ water cuali~v ov
.. ... -•• 4' suppor~in~ wides?read sewer
extensions have encoura~ec
scattered development a~ low
average densities contraciiccing
ocher' functional olans for ·
improvin~ pub l:i..c transit thac
requires more concentrated
urban develooment to be
financially feasible. Tne
contradiction is not inten-
tional but results from the
very separate funding criteria
used by federal agencies
responsible f·or each pro~ram.
POLICY 1
PUBLJC UTILlTIES POLiCIES
'3E RES PONS ~3LE T..;0II:'S rJF GOIJ::R:..'IME:IT S?.Ot:"'"LD G~J:DE
r?~ EX~~NSION OF sc.~~~ ~~D WATER SE~VICE ~~S
TO E.X? .:l...1.'TD T:~ BUIL~P-212 L.I\1\ID S"L?PI..Y CONS:S::'E:'IT
WITH THE POLI CIZS OF '!:-IE Su"'"BREGIONAL ?IAL"1.
Polic"'r Irno lemen tar:ion Guidelines
1.1 The King Subre~ional Council ~n contribur:in£
to evaluar:ion of ~rouosed ~~ansions of
utility service a=eas, will consider
1.2
1.3
l.L
impacts on the existin~ inventory of land
suitable for develoument. A oroposed
utility extension or connection shall be
ouestionable i£ it would add new land to
the inventory where the Subregional Council
has determined that suitable ouanticies and
types of land are already available within
comparable ~eo~raphic areas.
Local governments and the King Subre~ional
Council, when reviewin£ orooosals to eXPand
public utilitv or service areas, should.
evaluate the proposals on t~e basis of the
proportion of ~~isting serviceable and
buildable land in a particular area needed
to accommodate ~resent plus five year
population forecasts.
King Cow,ty, when considering increases in
local service areas as amendments to the
King Count? Sewera£e General Plan, or when
revie,...;in~ uti.lity distric~ p~ar.-s' sr:ould .
assure t~at r:~e extent: anc t~m~ng o~ serv~ce
increases take into consideration :he
population and employwent forecasts
Cons ..:sten~ ?-...:+--:-._~e c: .. ,-·o...,..~c-~ ....... -ra 1 -o,~n'c: .._ • ._ w.:..-•• ·--· -''-" --r-'-'·• ------
1 i ..: po ... _c .... es.
Th e Kino S··'"'-oc-..: c.,..,a· C:o, . .,..,_!"_.: ·_, -;.,o,·',... ""ont-in,"' -~.!:" ·~'-'--o;-•• --.._.,,_ .;:)1. • ...:.---.-:·.!. -·---
:o ass l.s ~ _cca..!.. g·:J,-Te=n.I!len::s =-~ ?:::"0\l:.c.:.:lg ~:1e
~eneral ?Ub2.ic a~d :~e building i~dus:~y with
~n~o~ar-.:o,.. -r--c,·r-~-~e--7",...,~..:,... , .... ..:,~ .. ..;es ;:.., __ d
.. -• •-• -~ --:-~o...-. C._. -~ N I... .-. t:: ~ ._-: - -._ -: - - --:: --:--
'
was~c u=~~~ se~7~ces are p~anne~ anc ~~
app roxima: e 2.? ~.vta: ? e!:' i o ds :J = : .:.:ne :hey a.r e , _
_,.,..o~..,........,ec.· .:-"' ~....-r4o~ ~o s--e"'r""'~-~~,., ~"""~_ .. e""t 7 Q-.J.., O""'-~-F-~L '. -·-""""~---,-~: ..... ~-·-----., ;...;
ment ~~ce~:~7es ~~ :~ose ~~aces.
--------------~~._ ________________ _
POLICY 2 LOCAL GOVERNME:IT' SC:C~L..D G'C'::JE ?!joLIC ~<iA:'ER
DIS:'RI3UTION -~\TD 'r7AS~~t7ATER CCLU:C:'ION SE3VICE
ARE..~ C-L~1GES DI . .l..CCJR!JP.~ICE ~·n:::-: ::-::::: S\.T3~GICN.:U.
?Uu\T 'S ?:L-\SED GROw""'!':-: C2NCE?:', ?~CQRI:'"'":" 3EI:TG
GIVEN IO LOCA:'IONS ~,.;:-:-:-: CNE OR :!OR~ OF :'EE
?OLLOWTIIG C:~.PAC':ERI3:'ICS .
A. AH.E.A.S COMMIT'ED TO J£i!ELOP~:IT ::-:3.0 CG-!
PRIOR ?TJELIC CP._?IT • ..\.l INVESTI"'!:E)ITS OR
P~OGRP~~ FOR STREETS, SC-100L FACILITIES,
PARKS, ETC. , SO T::P-.! ?TJBLIC L""':':LITIES ~.JOll.D
STJPPLE~NT 'L-IESE 0':':-1E?. COMPONEi·ITS OF
URBANIZATION _.l_2.TD CO~ITRI3l.T!'E 70 :xr::.:..
DEV'ELOPME:IT.
B. :LRL\S ~<~nERE ?RYSIC:U-CONDITIONS OF TEE
SERVICE A-REA LEND T:-IE::!SEL VES !0 ?.E .. .l..SONA3LE
COSTS FOR SITE DE"~TELOPME:IT, CONSTRUCTION OF
S.OADS , SE"'w"'"ERS , DP...J ... I~AGE , r..;ATER , :UID OT:-1ER
PUBLIC FACILITIES.
C. A...q£;AS itffiERE PREVIOUS L~TD DE'TELOP~NT,
r..;ITHOTJT ADEQUATE ?S.OVIS IONS F·OR :-:.~'IDLI)IG
S£1'.-lER.A..GE OR rrrATER S7.T?P!..Y, 2.AS CRE..~.TED A
THREAT TO PC3LIC ~E .. -\LTH OR GE:~~~L
ENVIRONMENT.~ CC'A.I..I'I'Y.
Policv Irrrolemen':at:.on Guideli::es
2.1 This is intended to be a key policy to
su~~ort ':he infilli~g. urban growt~
contai~~enc as~ects cf t~e ?r.ased ~rowt~
concent. Conscier:tiouslv anniied in local -,. . . ..' . --. ~overr..ment aec::..s:!...ons and :.n A-95 :-ev:..e~.vs
of capita: S?ending proposals, it ~eans
that utility exter:sions to scwe areas
~~e:-ie~cin?_~evelopme~t. ?re~su~e must be
ae.rer-:-ec. unt::.J. ot::e:-:-::..~:2 pr:.or:..ty a:-eas
a -e se,_.l"'d."' -=-4
----~:'"""' e ~-~ ,.....,..,.....: ----... ~--e~ .; -• ....._ -"'---=>'-· .:. .. ::---'--•-/ .:Of.:><.. ... _::, .. . .. , .. ' . -oasea en t~e p~asec zr2wt:: pr:..::C:!...?les o=
getti::-_~ ,....,a--c-':::ru::J. ,-e ~-~m ~-~~·-'ou~ -'1 0~ c,~
<, ' ":' ":"" .., _....... -~ ~-.__ -:-' - -I -• ~ .. ...J ----
c.a:p:..tac_ ::..::~;esc:::ents :;e::re :r.ov:.::g
f=u-r-.,_,e7" '"'U,~ p.,_,~ 1 "" ::::~;ro-1 ,...._._o ''T'~ec"'s~--""7 7 -!.,.0..4 -v :-' .,1"1 .. ,;.--:---'--"'""'.:--:---.. : .... -~~ .......
:.ncreases :r: ~ous:::~ costs ~:..::::..:: t~e
mana~ed ~=~wt~ areas.
_:; I
2.2 The ~in~ Subr7gional Co~cil, in ~:s A-95
and araz~ env~ronmencal ~ac~ scacement f
review~ of pr?posals_requ~rin?_ucil~cy .
ex~enslons, snall rerer to Tao1e 2. ~~ls
cable snells ouc t~nical c~aracceristics
of areas chac would.be =avored by subpolicies
A, B and C above. ::~e cable should be ~-:sed
on a.jud~encal =~ther c~7n.rigid bas~s~
Cons ~de~~~o ~~,~--,~e ~~n~·--ons ~-ev-,1·~~ ~ ---o --~A~~v ~~-~--~ ~~ A--~~0 L~ the subregion ac the time of evaluac~on.
58
0
TA.BLE 2
Characceriscics Indicati~? Appropriate Areas
for =::roans ion of C"ti~i:-r Service,
wnen a ~eed for Adci:ianal cui:dab:e Lane is Jemonstrated
! Characteristic Factors w~~ic~ Indicace
Char acceris cics
A.
B.
Areas committed to
developmenc.
Area has ohvsical
conditions suitable
fer reasonable site
development costs
Environmental hazards
require utility imrorove-
ments
Hi~hwavs and screecs constr~c~ed :c
urban s canC:a:=ds
Central ~acer system(s)
School classrooms
Parks and recreation facilities
Local sewage collection
Access to shappin~ and employment
Comnrehensi7e :ar.d use olan
provisions =or urban developcenc
of the area
Comnreher.s i ve s e~ver o lan ann raved
Fuli-time oalice and"oublic· fire
protection caoable of extension
to the area
Suitable soils far building
Microclimate
Amenities i~cluding ve~ecation
Gentle ~rades
No serious environmental hazards
-. . .. .. ~x~st~ng ceve~ooment presents
immediate chreat to public hea:ch:
Sewage ocllution of water supp~y
Sewa~e pollution of swimming
•.vaters
Sails 1..x.able to absorb effluent
from cie~.--elopme:J.t already in
the area.
Exiscing cievelcoment threacens
S ,._ .... inus 1 '"~nc-~~~ ~~~,·~-.:-~ -._-~ ----...,= ----o.~V-----V .. --....)
into :akes
59
POLICY 3 ?RO~OTE KI)TG SlTEREGIONAL COT.}0TCIL I:NOL'!EME:f'I' ::T
I~TERJu~ISDICTION~~ liiLI~Y ?~~~I~G DECISIONS.
-
-:, • ,_, '""1-.. ~ 7.; ,_ - , r-..,..:::. ~ """' ~ r-..,"M .; i -... "' 1 .. s .... .t ..... -:...:...:..-~::15 ~ur::.-_g_ .... na..;.. ,.._,u:;: ... c __ .:.no~..:_a a ~-.:. '-
3.2
local general ?~?OSe gove=nments in seeki::1g
ac ~ive ;....,volv..,..,...,en~ ;,... ,.,...; 1.; r-y ca.,..,; -ai ---··. ~~ •. -... ·-· .... i_-:-7 -... . :-'-:_.-
const~~ct~on aec~s~ons, #n~cn nave ~nter-
ju=isdictional ~pac~s and in considering
long-range ar.d secondary effects o£ such
invest:nent decisions.
Utility plans of special districts and
local governmer:.ts should document the
applicant's consideration o£ an adequate
range o£ alte~ative solutions to water
and sewerage problems. ~~o~g possible
alternatives, on-site or local oackage
sewera~e svstems should be considered in
lieu of connection to t~e Metro svs:em.
Modi£ication o£ land develoDment controls
in the area ex~ec:ec to need additional
utilitv service should also be evaluated
as an alternative.
3.3 Implement Kin? Subre~ional Council's state-
ment of principle adopted July 14, 1977:
"Prior to a decision bein~ made on
water cualitv oroblems, the solution
of which ~ight.be a Metro inter-
ce.,..,to-... ;_,e· 7 .:....,~ ~u;.,..,..ecrionai ~'ourci 1
j,J -' l-~-;:.... ---::. .,_! u --·.... -\,... J. --
shall have the opportunity to review
~~d comment or: :~e oroDosed solutions
aS thev NOUld =~~:her or frustrate
the.P7L~o~es :=~he adopted Goals and
Pol~c~es :8r ~ez~ona~ Jevelocment
or the Subrezic~al Plan, whe~ adopted.
The t~~~~£ c= :~~s review sha:l be
such that :.. t i.s '~s e=,~::.. in :~e eval ua-
tion of alter::a::i.ves analysi.s."
60
' .,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDlNATJON
Definition and Introduction
The appropriate grow~h wanagement role for tne Subregional
Council is found in those issues which are interjurisdictional
in nature. The Subregional Council orovides a for~ where
different perspectives on commonly shared gro~-r:~ management
issues can be disc~sed and resolution sought.
Prevalent i:J.tergovernmental growth management is sues can
be characterized in several ways:
• Common efforts to distribute and accommodate
the growth;
• Significant development decisions made by one
jurisdiction, w~e consequences of which may
impact one or more ow~er jurisdictions;
• RelationshiPs and responsibilities among dif-
ferent leveis of government.
Ob · ecc.,_· ~v-es. ;:::r:d P~o·o _: <::~.,.,.,,. .'a~d~Pss ""a· ...,,,. .-· -~ -· ~-~ ~ --~ ~v ~ne ln~ergovernmen:a~
Cooraina-:ion ?olicies
The intergove~~ental coordina=ion sec~ion is ?rimarily
designed :c avoid or minimize land use or development problems
r..;hic~ oc..cu= among gover:unencs. ?roo lems arise jecause of
di£ferenc eXDeccations or oerceived futures on :he ~arc of
neighboring ]urisdic:ions, · corii?e:i:ion amor..g gove=:-..IDen-:.s,
-:,.e ::a;~ u.,..= -o co,..,..,...,.,,·n.; "'a~c or --~.c-; ; -· · :... .:.. ----'-............... _._ ~-, -__ -:!l?Os_._::_on oy one
gover:unent on another of sta.Tldar:is or requiremen~s.
The intergcve~mencal coora::..nation objective of :~e plan is
co identi£y me~~s co minimize problems be:..~een governments
which hamper ac~ievemen: of growth management scra~egies.
Specific objectives include:
Incergove~mental Co-
ordination Objectives
e To minimize the negative
impact of federal or state
administrative rules or
regulations on local la.T1d
use de cis ions .
Problems Addressed
• Federal and s~ate r~les and reg-
ulations, although well in-
tended, sometimes have the effect
of preempting desirable local •
choices or ootions. Valid local •
decisions are occasionally
subjugated to federal guidelines
with an adverse iwoact on :he
local jurisdiction~
• The number, diversity, and
autonomy a£ management of federal
programs ~ay serv-e to promote con-
flict between federal programs
and guidelines within a single
jurisdiction. Soecific targets
or pu...~oses of =ederal programs
frequen:ly do not match local
oroblems Nhich may result in
eXDensive, non-COS~-effective
So i ,H.; ons wr,; cl..., c ...... caf".:. .,,...,_ ----.... -------_ ....
-1 .. , :oreseen seconcary proo~ems.
0
Intergovernmental Co-
ordination Obj ecti.7es
e To promote coordi~ation
among governments co
minimize land use orob-
1~ that result from
unilateral land use
decisions which have
an adverse secondary
impact on ana ther
jurisdiction.
e To encourage consideration
of soecific issues related
to growth manageme~c
problems.
• To encourage utilization
of :~e Ki~g Subregiona:
Council as a for~ for
discussion of i~:er-
' , gover:-...:nen ta.L grow~.:1.
management issues.
'='-, 1 ..l. , , Q , ..... oo_ems .. ac.r_ssea
• Significant: local gover!"..menc
development, land 1-l.Se, ar:d serv·ice
provision decisions may nave
effects beyond the boundaries of
u~e jurisdiction responsible for
the decision. TI~e site for ~hie~
development cecisions are made
in unincorporated areas may ~e
annexed or incoroorated at a
later date, thus.maki~g a second
goverr..mental entity responsible
for providing services co the
development. Jurisdictions
may pe~t development which
is inconsistent with the objec-
tives of the neighboring
jurisdictions.
• The State SuPreme Court i~
S A 17 -;;-B. h 11 ~ · . . . . . ... . v. o t1 e _, .to una t~at:
t~e weliare or the entire
affected community muse be
served when a decision is made
which will have a substantial
environmental imnact outside
jurisdictional boundaries.
• The basic issues in functional
plans and programs such as water
supply, wastewater treac~ent,
and solid waste management
frequently become er~eshed with
larger issues of an inter-
jurisdictional nature and c~e
identification or resolu-
63
tion c f i::r:mediate, small s ca~.-e
prob :.ems is ~a.rrrpered.
• Ccr:::rn.J...:r.ica cion ~:: e c~,.;een lc cal . . . gover:;.:c.ent:s, on .:.ana use ~""'la
ocher ~ac:ers of wu:ual
conce=n, ~as =een i~formal.
!'b. ere are no s cat:"J.t:es reqU.:.ri::g
~~cato~r referral of 3ajor land
Intergove~~e~cal Co-
ordination ~bjectives
e Provide a:: agreed Ut:lon
intergove=nmencal
approach as :o haw
growth should occ~r.
Problems Addressed
use decisions by one i1.!ris-
diction :a other ?Otentially
affected jurisdictions i~
the region.
• Gove~en:s ~ave not had w~i
fo~ standards, policies or
procedures in regard to growth.
As a result, governments can
be played off against each other
and development may follow the
course of least resistance.
' .,
t.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION POLICIES
?OLICY l LOCAL GROw"'I'li M..~\JAG:C:..:."'-S:-T':' IJECISICNS OR OPTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE HI~DE~D 3Y STA~E OR ?EDE~~
POLICIES.
Policy I.mo le.menta.tion Guidelines
l.l The.King ~u~~egi~na.l_Co~~ci: sto~l~ ~cci:ely
ass ~ ~t ana , aen-~ .::~, -or ro-,-,.-;:::.s~ -;:::.ae.,..-i ..,.;:, -.. _~_J.....:...~ ;_ -.....; ~J.o--..::. , ---~-
agencies, sca.te agencies, and the legisla-
ture those orozra.ms and admi.nis c::::-ati ve =~J.les
and regula~ians ~hie~ have the ?Otentia~ for
adversely a£fec:ing t~e growt~ ~anagament
priori~ies or te~~ni~ues of local govern-
ments, or imnose un=easonab~e demands on che
-oso,,~ces or" lrc~l ~av;:::.~menc-
-._ ~ - -'>.../ --0 --~.............. .. .;:! •
1.2 Public policies which have nan-land use
objectives but ~hich indirec~ly affect land
use and growt~ management issues scauld be
identified and their ~nacts examined.
Undesi=able UI:roac:s should ]e called to the
attention of the a.pp=opria.:.e agencies.
1.3 Local governments shoulci cclleccively seek
to influence federal policy :.a give t~e
greatest latitude fa= local ~3plemencaticn of
federal programs.
1.4 h~e King Subregional Counc~-shou~c ~oni:.or
Washington State growth m~~agement planning
activities and apprise local gaver7-nencs.
!) J
POLICY 2 U..'1D USE A.J.'1D Gr\Cw""'I'E ::,.t....~.'1AGE:f£:NT ISSu'ES Al'ID DECISIONS
SHOlJLD 3E IDENTI?IZD .~'1D 3ROUGHT TO :EE A:TENTION {
OF ALL ?O~~~E~~r~y AF?EC~E~ :uKISDIC~IONS, ~I~~
ME.A.SURES TA.Z:::~ TC C:JO?ER..:._:T'"VELY ?.ESOL'lE CON:'LIC~S.
Policv-Im:olemer;.tat:i.::::: Guidelines
2. l ~~::1?' ~ounty.' c~ ~:.es a.~~ special pu....-pos e
a~str~c:s snou~a coora~nat:e, cooperate,
exc ~~~~Q ~~;~~-~~~~ o~ on~~~Q ;~ ~oi~--~.l':"--~-~---:-._;-.J .. :::.--o....~L..O. :-. -· ':"c;;.~"": -·J.--J -:J..I....
meet~n~s pr~or to reacn~n~ ~aJar lana ~se
or development: decisions in order co bring
major growth management issues and scracegies
to the attention of each affected ~ove:P~ent.
2.2 Cities, with the concurrence of Kin2: Caunt:v
and ather cities should formally idencify ·
~eographic areas within which the city has
a significant incerest in land ~se or
development decisions.
2.3 Interim "joint spheres of influence" should
be developed between local ~overnments which
provide far referral of specified development f
actions to affected ju=iscictians. ?reposed
actions should be reviewed a2:ainst adaDted
1 d l . . . d ~ ~-d . t' -p ans an po-~c~es ana e_erre ~n ne event:
the proposed action is in conflict with adapted
plans or policies of the secondarily affected
juris diction.
2.4 A lang range profram for determination and
intergoverr~ental ~anagement of urbanizacion,
and staged urban services delivery in the
areas adjacent to cities should be developed
and new legislation sou?ht as necessa~1.
2.5 Cities and s~ecial ou~ose distric~s should
be directlv involved .:..:: conrorehensive and
community p la..""ls ar:d s t~:.dies-concerned ~.-~.:.. t:;.
the unincorDoraced areas a~ King County.
66
?OLICY 3 SPECL;l_L ?URPOSE JISTRIC:' JECIS IONS r~-cic:-i u I.:?.S:CI'I:!
OR INDIRECTLY L.VfPACT L.ll-ID CSE OR G~Owi:-: ~~~~V.GE
:1ENT SEOu"LD BE COORDI~TA:EJ ~'~~IT:-: -~:?:?.OP:?.:.~~ G2fZ~).L
P"(JRPOSE GOVE3....T\IME:,ri'S. -
?o lic.y I::m lemenca::icn GuiC.elines
3.1 Special pu...~ose dis::ric.cs should be accorded
membership en t~e K~ng Subregional Council
and/or appropriate ~ommi:te~s.
3.2 Special purpose agencies sue~ as schoo:
discricts, oor~ C.is:riccs a~C. sewer dis-
tricts, should avoid ma.i.<:.ing :..:.nilaceral
commi tment:s on is sues ~t:ich ha~Je grow-c~
management i~licacicns.
3.3 A uni£o~ data base should be utilized :or
planning and management decisions.
3.!:. Obligation of public :·..:...-:ds or inciebteci:1ess
should not be allowed :o exceed realiscic.ally
e ...,...,..,ec-""d -:::.ve,..,ues ...... .,f"""'......, ~·n--ev-"'\ -'M .... ; on o~ ~-..!:-' --... --· ' ::::. '-'--• ... ~ Q.l.. ·.:::' C.J..::.-. -
ser7ice is necessa~r :o ~e~: =~nanc~al obli~a
tions.
3.5 Information should be shared be~~een s~ec~al
purpose and general ?~~cse gove~en:s in
3.6
a timely fashion. ?eriodic joint meecings
should be held.
Soecial ou...~ose dis::::-icts should be involved . -. in :he "fina:. joi::-: swhere c:: i:1f2.uence"
conceot.
3. 7 Lo~al_governments: S?ecia~ pu~pose district~,
~~c. -,rpo~t o-oo~~o~~~--~o,'la ~eo~ ~ooro-c~::.~ ~·. 0.--.... . ..:.. .. .._...;... __ ._._,::, :::J'".;. ~-::> -~ -.... ~ .... _:::::;
that ·.vculd mit~ga.:e 2..a.nc '..:se ccnflic.::s r:ea.::-
e v~~~.:...,"" o~ o~oooc::e,-:; -v~-r-i~.~ F-cil-i-i.:::.s .. ~,:j .... _ ..... =:: -.. -· .. - -~ -c.--'wt..J. -<::::. ---·---) -na· a.~Q~.,.eic.,.., -e-·"i-._;s --. ~~·c ... ·,....; -.:::.1" .. f"""''-.:.-,----s~,-:;
:-• • -\1 -!-" ~--:-.... W'-. _ _, :::.1 --.. J.-N .....,.~.,. -·-'--'::.:::. t:::-
.L2.,..,_C. \lSe ccni~:..,::::s :..:: ::=:.e event c:r: a.i::-::~c:-::
development or ex?~-:sicn.
POLICY L:. FUNCTIONAL RES?ONSIBILI'!'IES OF COL~TY, STATE A..'iD
FEDERAL GOVERJ.'H1ENTS '"'niCE I~F!..L"E~C::C: GROw"T3 M..4..'IAGE-
MENT DECIS"iONS OR DE 17ELOP~NT ?ATTERL'IS 0? CI7IES
SF.OlJLD 3E Sl:BJECT TO JOI::TT CONS I.JE~ .... ~::ON _.:. .. .ND
Policv Imnlementa~ion G~ideli~es
4.1 Management of co~~cy-wide :~c~ions should
include di::-ect ~ons~ltacion with a££ecced
~ities.
4.2 The impact of proper~y t~~ assessment praccices
on growth management should be reviewed and
means should be sought which preclude
property assessment from adve=sely affecting
growth management policies.
4. 3 Siting, permits and appro·vals for social
service facilities and ~tility improvements
should be reviewed by potentially affected
governments.
4.4 Government offices and services should be
located where t~ere is good public transit
access.
S8
• ·-
POLICY 5
,,.-..
'
:'HE KI~G St~REGION)I..L COGNCIL SEOT...""LD 3E l;""'!'Il.IZ-::::J
AS A FOPJJM FOR IDE::ITI?IC.!...:'ION, DISCUSSION .\1m
DEBATE Al.\TD CONFLIC~ KESOL:.;-:-:oN OF IS St"'ES .-\F"?::C':I:~G
MORE nL~.N ONE JURISDICTIJ01".
Policv ImDlementation Guidelines
~ 1 J._
5.2
r.~e King Subre?ional Council should seek ~o
provide a flexible and open enviro~~ent 5o=
discussion of issues by elected officials.
Population and e!!IP loyment fore cas cs and
allocations should be viewed as a tool
for testing or focusin~ ~~owe~ management
issues or discussions.
?OLICY 6
( (
LOCAL GROWTrl ~A~AGEMEN~ ?L}~~s .~~D POLICIES ~~~T
AFFECT MORE T:-L4.N ONE JURISDICTION SEOULD :SE 31:-
VlE'Wt:D A.ND DISCUSSED BY ::-:CSE A?:EC'I'ED .:u?-.ISDIC-
T!ONS ?~OR TO ADOPT!ON :0 INSt:lli CONSISTE~CY
wl.T1~ 'I'HE KING STJ3REG:ONAL PLAN.
Policv Imolemen~acion Guidelines
6 .l The King Subregional Plan should be used
by local governmen~s and :~e Subregional
Council to evaluate o~he= county-wide
growth rnanagemenc plans or policies.
6.2 Amendment of the King Subregional Plan
should occu= when county-wide growth
management plans or policies o£ membe=
jurisdictions a=e determined by the
Subregional Council :o provide a prefe=-
able alterna~ive.
70
•
•
PLAN GLOSSARY
A-95: refers co Circular ~o. A-95 :r~m :~e U. S. Office of
-:fanagement and Budgec. 7:."le A-95 ::-evieT.v ?recess :..s co-
ordinated by the King Sub::::-egiona=.. Co<.:r:cil ar:d provides
an O .,....,por-un~---.. T f=or 1oc-1 ~,,..,.....;-c·.;--.;.._.,..,s i--=..,-es-=.c· c;-..; ~ '-·~ .. :" ..... -~-j ~-~ ·~1._-..J...l.ll.~ ' -•.!.'---~-' -~~-
zens, and the Puget Sound Cour..cil of Gover'::'1..!!lencs co revi::n.;,
evaluate, and comment on projeccs requesci~g federal funds.
The comments are compiled and s~bmi:::ed to federa: :~~di~g
agenc.;Qs ~or r'ha-i-cons;,..;er.::l-.;,...,.,..., ~--'h.:. --anr--,.~-,...c.· o-'"'c.:.ss .. --..~. -··--..:.. .......... -~-....J .. .:. _ ....... ·--.... -o-J. -c:.N.a.-"' .... ,..._.~ - .
activit~ allocation ~odel (&~~) : a machematical ~ode:.. c~ac
use to simulate the iwnacc a£ di=ferent sees of ur~an
development policies an· the loca:ion of employment and
population in the region during :~e ~ex: 10 or 20 years.
:.s
activity centers: focal points of d:..verse and intensive activ-
ity which may include a concentrac:..an of jobs, shopping,
offices, business, recreation, anC. ser,;ice fu:1ccians, usually
with a highly developed transpor::acion net"'.vork serving and
connecting one or more cencers.
central business district (CBD): disti~zuished from mosc
shopping cer:cers in that it incl~des~~ses other chan
retail, such as gove=nment, entertain~ent, ser~~ce, and
-F-. o_r:~ce.
committed to development: lands commi::ed to development are
characcerized by existing or programmed water or se•.ver or
other urban service, adequate ac~ess and circ'.J.lation,
surTounding urban or suburban development, envirc~mencal
suitability, and/or designation for development i.:: t=:e
near future by local zoning or compre~ensive plans.
Federal Aid Urban Svscem (FAUS): f,-.:.nds ·.vhich are used for :he
improvement ana. conscruccion of ci:y and councy screets,
roads, transit projects and the Ccmmucer Pool and are
administered by the Puget Sound Council of Govern~encs
W1.. t h; n a ,..; e s ; ,........, ~ -~ a.· " .... ._, a.,., ; ,.., ~ a.· -.... =. -• ....... ._. -c..:.J.d.l---~u .~.. ___ .._ -::::.--~.
Goals and ?o:..icies for Res::icr.al Jeve=..:cr::en:: A ?Oli~y g'..:ide
tar regior.a~ ~a::a use, cranspor:a:~:n ana housi~g decisior.s
adopted. ':Jv che ?~..:zec So1..1..-:C. Cou::c:..:.. of Gove::-::::.encs i:"..
7 Q b ,...., 'a~" · 1 o 7 7 -
• ----.; J _,., •
s::row::h ~nazemenc:
c.evelopmenc :o
faci.licies and . ~ . neT..J s er.J.,.:.ces a=e ~ ~a::::ec. :-J
;:.;s,....:::·., --._ ___ J
high occunancv vec.:..c~es: buses, car ?Ools, van oools and or~vate
a.utomo'oi..L.es w-i::=: :::;.ree or more occ1.:::oants.
. -. ~ ""' ~:l=~.l~: develonmen:: -~ • • ""' 1 c:: vacar.:: s~~Dwec-over _ar.c.
intensive ::::.ose ac::i7:.:::..es anC. lane uses -wn.:.. c::
----------------------~.--. . . • • • • • • 1 1 • • concentrate ::r~o aes::~na::~ons or
of employees or~~scrs. ~xa~nl:s
include retai~, o==:..ce, se~v~ce,
or ente::-::ai:::men:: uses of
~n~c:: nave ::.:..gn aensL::~es a= in::ens:..ve ac::..-~::ies
gover:J.::J.er.:, eciuca cional,
joint snheres of influence: agreenen::s be~Neen local gcve~-
men ---w.._;c~ -..,...1""'\v.:.a·~ -o ,.-.=.; ____ .., o= -~e("'';;..;oa.' a1 Q""7e'o-n .:::~-~,:, u ......... ~::.'"'-'=: :-r.---:-:--=-:-:.--,:,~ ------ _ C"'m ___ _
act~ons :o a.==ec:ec.. J u:r.:..s c.:..c ::.:..ems, an c. encourage coor::.::..na-
tion and coopera:::..cn on cievelcpnent issues occu:rring at
j urisdictiona~ boundaries.
local service areas: areas designated as seweraoLe and aut::.or-
izeci oy tne King County General Sewerage Plan anci subsequent
amendmen::s :o receive all fo~ of sewer service and repre-
sent the maximum area which could be potentially sewered
consistent with local land use plans and policies.
ohased g::-owth: definition o£ t::.e land area and services needed
to accommodate anticipated grow::h in population and employ-
ment and using the provision of public services to guide
C'ne t;~~n~ -nd 1oc~-~on ~: -~a~ orow-h J. "'-....u..-~o :..o. -_:_..._ "".:.. L..~~ '-o-:..~ ·
Dlanned 1..:ni: de"'lelonment (PUD): a tY?e of development in
· which the sponsor is allowed more design :lexibility chan
under the exis::ing zoning ordi~ance frequently resulting
in better utiliza::ion o: open space (e.g. variety a=
building types, densities and sice plans). Typically a
P~D is a residential development, however i: can be a
Comme ~c;~i ;~~us-~;a1 OT ~;voa.' c"ev~io~~e~-----' -~.......... ~---' -~-·---!-"~ ...... I_.
~e£icnal Develonmen: Plan (RDP) : A
ment anc growt:h manageoent plan
composite regional develop-
7=o.,.. -he con:~-1 :l·,oc.:-:::::ound -J.. -·· -"--c.-_....,o--I..J
Region which includes the Goals and Policies for Regional
Development anc each of :he sucregional plans =or King,
Kitsap, ?ierce anC. Snohooish Cow~:ies .
....... r-1-,..:..;S""'e~-e..: -.=.s-ia·e.,..,-.:al -...... .o-"-~:-._a ;rene--l -oad net-r..;ork ---0.-e "'-:"-~ __ .,::, ~----.... ~·--0::::.:--~
0
-::--•l 0 :C.-.. · ~
S '"'aC,.,.,C' 7"-...... -.... e.,... aD-.,..:-~ban 7-,.,.,~ '0 c-o~o~-l '7 .,.,..,SeT·~..,..oc tJ -·•o -c::.--··-.. c.--• .4 2 ;...:.J.---, o-.... --c:.--~ -• N'=--1
often wi::h ~~=al t::-ade centers and industries oriented :o
the land tha:: are :-~ot deper.C.en: en '.:=jan ser~.rices, (e.g.
far::ni.no0 , ,,,rnbe ...... :=.:_lls, ::J.i.ni.,...,c-) --.... -.... :;, .
Sta.:e ::::'":r.:..::-~~.:::e::.:.a.:. ?olic~r .. ~·:.: ·~= :-_9~: (SC:? .. ~): :-ec"...:~:=as an __ ...;._a_n_a..;...,...l.-y_s_::.~· ~s...;.:..:o:;;._.;.._.,;.;_;~:..,::-..;. . .:;;e__;,s_:..;.. . ....;:6'..:--:...:;.~: ..,.;..~i....;:c..;;..c..::._ ,..,....;:_ .. -:_:_..,..~-"""-P..;.c.:..._ -c-:-....:.o-r.----"",...~..;_e en "l'i :::-or..I!:e:;, ~ ~ =
proposed ?=OJec:s, ?~ans, a~c ~r2zra~.
72
skitroeci-ove!:" ~a.nrff". '..:.J.cieve~cp eci ·,-a::a.:::
rx=~an ar.c 5~~~==an a=eas.
sura.wl:
out: low C:.er:s i :7 c::n:m:.e::-::ia.:. :.e'le:. ~ps.er..c,
:hor:::JUgn.=a.:=es.
suburban: low :a :nedi:.:.::1 :ier..si:; :-esi::.er::ia..:. :ie'Je:.:::p-:Ie:nc -..;~:::
:::esi~:::ntial. ciensi:ies =~Gica.:..:.:r_ ~2..:.~~i:1g _::=:::n: ::-:.;c :a sev':r..
,...,.,.-e1 ',_...g ,.,.,....~ --""e.,.. -c-., -~ -o -· -... -,-.c--,....,... -c~e --.,~s ,-,-..... w ---..!...;. ~J.-l-.::J :" -~ --7 ~-~ ~---•'1-... .J.: --.....~-.::1 ~ ::.---"-'-
"1 • .. ~ • -• ~ • • • ... • • • • ... ClJ.gne= mu~c:.-::::m'1.:...:r c.ens:.:y, ::::w:me:=:::.a._ ::.::c. :.::c.usc::-2..2._
cieve lo-p men t .
suburban/ru:=a.l edze:
Transuort:acion II!!O:=ove!!!enc ?roz::-a::;. ('::?): a scheC:.:.:.le or: sc:·eec,
• 1 • . • ~,. nJ.gnway ana oc~er cranspor:a.c:.on :.=provemen::s. ~ne prog::-am
is updated annua.:.lz ~~ ~ocal gc~e~~ents,, ::te.Washi::gco~
State Depa::-t:menc or: tugri•.vays ar.a ~!ec-ro, =~e!'. :.s approvec.
and mai,....-aine.-i ""v ... 1-,e ~u'or<> .;o -' -...,,,.,...,,...il "r''~e 'J-,-,c---m .;-• ---·'-. ---."'" :--.... _g ..... Tic::.-: l..,\..,~ ... '---· -·.· -.l.,''-'~-C::.. -.::'
used by the Fec.eral Department a: ::-ansporta.c:.on as a oas:.s
for allocating :ederal f~J.ds :a ?=-ojeccs.
Transportation System Plan: che comnretensive plan :or trans-
u_ortacion in the Cer.cral Puc-., ... ~a~~~ -.,c-~an Tr ~~clu~es -:::;, - -o..J ..,_--- -0-. - -__ ... .......
transport:at:ion goals and policies :or =~e region, decaile~
identification of new facilities :-ecuired co meet exuecced
travel demands, an estimate of t~e cost of imple~enti~g :he
plan and an envircn.:n.e:'ltal asses sr::e::::.
urban:
of
me d i ',.,.,., :-a ....., ~ <::" :-, d ='"" s ..; t -y· -~ -..... -o-~ _ .. _ -.. /
six units per acre r,.;i c:-:.
employment: centers.
excess
ana.
vacant lands st"..:dv (?.inc-Cou.ntv I..anC. CaDaci:-r Stuc--r: Vacan::
La.T1ds I:;.ven tor-r) : a :aou.!...a tion o:: -:aca:: c l.a::;.d in ·.ves cer::
Ki:1g County procuced ':ly the King Ccu:::ty Planning Division
and the King Sub::-egional Cou.nci~. -~e invento::-y incl~des
tables and maps ~hi::: i:1dicate :he amount cf vacant land
in terms of its ...,:-,~.,.s~ ~"-: s-u-i,_::~.....,~';-·· =,...,..,... _..:e'·-"'1 ·OD,..,.,Q~--:~-J.." __ ..:;::._ -'-__ ...., ___ ._~"' ----"--... ~.._ ... _,_,
::::~.,.-; 1 :::'oi 1; ... .,. ,-,F -e ... ·e--vG ___ ---'-] ~-~ N -
classifications.
zoni::g:
:he
s er-.1:. c e , anc _,.....M~---.:"'?Qc.• 5 :::: ... ~-.,;_ ~--..-._ . zoni:1g
ccun:ies t::: :on:roi
:":1.e co!!:!!l1..:Z"-i:y is